3 ms·

We certainly need a better way to organize politically. Listing to John Oilver's episode on congressional fundraising (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9

We certainly need a better way to organize politically. Listing to John Oilver's episode on congressional fundraising (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk) leads me to believe that our representatives aren't particularly accountable to the people they represent. That said, this https://pursuanceproject.org/ https://pursuanceproject.org/ seems a bit technical, a bit more technical than what's needed? Couldn't we just take standard democratic representation down a level? Replicate and automate a pattern is already known to work, at a more granular level, rather than reinventing a brand new structure? Let's say a house representative agreed to cast their votes reflecting the preferences of a majority of "block champions" in their district. Perhaps these block leaders having some sort of rank based upon the number of people who endorse them? Those same champions could also reflect their preferences for local and state issues as well. In this way, the representative would use the preferences of the champions to justify their vote. The nice thing about this proposal is that it could be implemented and would be compatible with our existing governmental structures.

visarga 9y ago
> These block leaders having some sort of rank based upon the number of people who endorse them? Those same champions could also reflect their preferences for local and state issues as well. I prefer a system with perfect balance: sortition. Just randomly select 1000 people from US and they can take a decision (like a jury). Disband, repeat. It doesn't even require parties, elections and funding. It's hard to control by lobbyists because every time different people are chosen. If the decision is technical, then there should be a preparation period before voting, where presentations be held in front of the legislators.
- clarkevans 9y ago
  Why is my comment and this thoughtful response being downvoted? EDIT: and this one too? -3 and counting?
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    That's a good question. Russian bots, perhaps?
evanlivingston 9y ago
You might be interested in reading about participatory politics and nested councils. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_politics I don't think the solution needs to necessarily be a technical one.

visarga 9y ago

> These block leaders having some sort of rank based upon the number of people who endorse them? Those same champions could also reflect their preferences for local and state issues as well. I prefer a system with perfect balance: sortition. Just randomly select 1000 people from US and they can take a decision (like a jury). Disband, repeat. It doesn't even require parties, elections and funding. It's hard to control by lobbyists because every time different people are chosen. If the decision is technical, then there should be a preparation period before voting, where presentations be held in front of the legislators.

clarkevans 9y ago
Why is my comment and this thoughtful response being downvoted? EDIT: and this one too? -3 and counting?
- rbanffy 9y ago
  That's a good question. Russian bots, perhaps?

evanlivingston 9y ago

You might be interested in reading about participatory politics and nested councils. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_politics I don't think the solution needs to necessarily be a technical one.