3 ms·

But it would be more important for those engineers would also need to have a solid understanding of the law, which is a highly detailed and nuanced field. I thi

But it would be more important for those engineers would also need to have a solid understanding of the law, which is a highly detailed and nuanced field. I think this isn't an implementable solution. Maybe you get a more-technically-knowledgable version of Ron Wyden who then sits on several subcommittees, but you're not going to get 10% of the Senate to be software engineers. After all, one could just as easily say that we need more senators who are nurses, petroleum engineers, hydrological engineers, pilots, soldiers, teachers, tax accountants, actuaries... I think a better solution would be either: 1) When elected officials run for office, they explicitly state who their go-to advisor for internet and technology matters is. That way, they are not so reliant on the technical advice of lobbyists. The flaw in this is that now those advisors' opinions on unrelated matters are subject to scrutiny. I can easily imagine a scandal because it turns out that some senator's advisor said something dumb about abortion 5 years prior to an election. I'd like to say "well, don't judge the advisor on things unrelated to their area of expertise", but where do you draw that boundary? Is someone's opinion on domestic violence or prostitution really irrelevant to how they advise a senator on FOSTA? 2) The UK has been framing the House of Lords as a council of experts for a while now. I don't know how well it actually works as one though.

mostlyskeptical 9y ago
Doesn't the house of Lords have some members appointed by the church, others by birth, women weren't allowed to be Lords spiritual until 2015, and women still aren't allowed to inherit some seats today? Hard to take that seriously in any regard, much less as 'experts'.
- tialaramex 9y ago
  How would bishops not qualify as experts? To be sure I have no interest in the thing they're experts in, but I could say the same for performance art or make-up and presumably there are experts in those fields too. You can't inherit any of the seats any more, you can inherit a title that means the other Lords could pick you for their chamber without anybody else sending you, this was supposed to be temporary but no other mechanism has ever been approved to replace it. But nobody automatically gets a seat, either they were sent there or they were chosen by the others.
- somewhatoff 9y ago
  The majority (> 80%) are life peers, appointed in theory for being distinguished in their field. So yes, many experts among them. For example: https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-winston/1770 https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-winston/177...
wool_gather 9y ago
> The flaw in this is that now those advisors' opinions on unrelated matters are subject to scrutiny Well, that and there's no reason to think that the candidate won't just reach into the lobbyist pool to pick their advisor. Still, you're absolutely right that having lawmakers that are themselves technical experts is not super important, or likely. They always rely on staff, and that's fine. No one person can know everything about everything.
Silhouette 9y ago
The UK has been framing the House of Lords as a council of experts for a while now. I don't know how well it actually works as one though. It's basically pot luck, unfortunately. Sometimes the Lords have quite enlightened debates, where several contributors clearly do have expert knowledge in a field and others do respect that and politely defer to those with more relevant experience. Consequently, sometimes they really do send proposed laws back to the Commons with helpful amendments suggested. However, sometimes they have no idea what they're talking about at all. It's not unusual to see a committee of Lords hearing evidence from high-ranking civil servants on some issue where the entire session looks like one old, rich, out-of-touch person after another declaring an interest due to their own business activities and all of them collectively missing the point for several hours. It's not a universal truth, but I'm afraid discussions around science and technology subjects tend to fall into the latter category, other than perhaps on medical matters, where there does seem to be enough knowledge and expertise within the Lords to allow constructive and intelligent debate.
Casseres 9y ago
I think you're underestimating the many engineers out there who deal with contracts, and the laws regarding their profession. > one could just as easily say that we need more senators who are nurses, petroleum engineers, hydrological engineers, pilots, soldiers, teachers, tax accountants, actuaries... I agree! That's what my "etc" was for. I would love to see more everyday people run for office so our elected officials can be a better representation of the everyday people they're supposed to represent.

mostlyskeptical 9y ago

Doesn't the house of Lords have some members appointed by the church, others by birth, women weren't allowed to be Lords spiritual until 2015, and women still aren't allowed to inherit some seats today? Hard to take that seriously in any regard, much less as 'experts'.

tialaramex 9y ago
How would bishops not qualify as experts? To be sure I have no interest in the thing they're experts in, but I could say the same for performance art or make-up and presumably there are experts in those fields too. You can't inherit any of the seats any more, you can inherit a title that means the other Lords could pick you for their chamber without anybody else sending you, this was supposed to be temporary but no other mechanism has ever been approved to replace it. But nobody automatically gets a seat, either they were sent there or they were chosen by the others.
somewhatoff 9y ago
The majority (> 80%) are life peers, appointed in theory for being distinguished in their field. So yes, many experts among them. For example: https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-winston/1770 https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-winston/177...

wool_gather 9y ago

> The flaw in this is that now those advisors' opinions on unrelated matters are subject to scrutiny Well, that and there's no reason to think that the candidate won't just reach into the lobbyist pool to pick their advisor. Still, you're absolutely right that having lawmakers that are themselves technical experts is not super important, or likely. They always rely on staff, and that's fine. No one person can know everything about everything.

Silhouette 9y ago

The UK has been framing the House of Lords as a council of experts for a while now. I don't know how well it actually works as one though. It's basically pot luck, unfortunately. Sometimes the Lords have quite enlightened debates, where several contributors clearly do have expert knowledge in a field and others do respect that and politely defer to those with more relevant experience. Consequently, sometimes they really do send proposed laws back to the Commons with helpful amendments suggested. However, sometimes they have no idea what they're talking about at all. It's not unusual to see a committee of Lords hearing evidence from high-ranking civil servants on some issue where the entire session looks like one old, rich, out-of-touch person after another declaring an interest due to their own business activities and all of them collectively missing the point for several hours. It's not a universal truth, but I'm afraid discussions around science and technology subjects tend to fall into the latter category, other than perhaps on medical matters, where there does seem to be enough knowledge and expertise within the Lords to allow constructive and intelligent debate.

Casseres 9y ago

I think you're underestimating the many engineers out there who deal with contracts, and the laws regarding their profession. > one could just as easily say that we need more senators who are nurses, petroleum engineers, hydrological engineers, pilots, soldiers, teachers, tax accountants, actuaries... I agree! That's what my "etc" was for. I would love to see more everyday people run for office so our elected officials can be a better representation of the everyday people they're supposed to represent.