5 ms·

the flaw in that reasoning is that you’re creating a single point of subvertible power (and failure). that might have made sense 250 years ago before the advent

the flaw in that reasoning is that you’re creating a single point of subvertible power (and failure). that might have made sense 250 years ago before the advent of electricity and telecommunications (and smaller systemic dangers), but not so much anymore. it also doesn’t solve the ‘aww shucks’ issue you mention at all, which really is an incentives issue beyond representation (you could instead, as a wild supposition, make all representatives live within 20 miles of the plant to align incentives). we should elect 10s if not 100s of such representatives at a time (and those folks can hire further experts as necessary) so that no one rep has inordinate power, because depending on a single person is certain to fail at some point. that also is more likely to provide diversity of thought, which is crucial to effective decision-making. we’re rich enough as a nation to support such a panel without batting an eye.

visualradio 6y ago
> you could instead, as a wild supposition, make all representatives live within 20 miles of the plant to align incentives Isn't it possible this would increase the chance they had financial ties to the nuclear industry? My initial thought was that if you appointed environmental scientists to monitor emissions in areas without nuclear plants, they could also check the work of other assessors in areas with nuclear plants, to make sure their colleagues were honest, when attending board meetings. So you would get bright people which were otherwise uninvolved to check the work and listen to what was being discussed. Another option which would not rely on local election, would be to have Congress appoint 50 environmental assessors, one from each state, which were required to be permanent residents of each state they were appointed to represent, rather than employees of a national office. The assessors would then meet once per year to form a national oversight board.
- clairity 6y ago
  > "Isn't it possible this would increase the chance they had financial ties to the nuclear industry?" possibly, but i'd guess it's unlikely to be a significantly material effect, since you'd still be aiming to get a diverse group of representatives (many of whom would then have to move to be near one of the many nuclear plants in the state/country). i lived within 20 miles of a nuclear plant for a small part of my life and plenty of people in the area had nothing to do with the plant. i think the more important bit is having wide and diverse representation and limiting the corruptibility of any individual representative.

visualradio 6y ago

> you could instead, as a wild supposition, make all representatives live within 20 miles of the plant to align incentives Isn't it possible this would increase the chance they had financial ties to the nuclear industry? My initial thought was that if you appointed environmental scientists to monitor emissions in areas without nuclear plants, they could also check the work of other assessors in areas with nuclear plants, to make sure their colleagues were honest, when attending board meetings. So you would get bright people which were otherwise uninvolved to check the work and listen to what was being discussed. Another option which would not rely on local election, would be to have Congress appoint 50 environmental assessors, one from each state, which were required to be permanent residents of each state they were appointed to represent, rather than employees of a national office. The assessors would then meet once per year to form a national oversight board.

clairity 6y ago
> "Isn't it possible this would increase the chance they had financial ties to the nuclear industry?" possibly, but i'd guess it's unlikely to be a significantly material effect, since you'd still be aiming to get a diverse group of representatives (many of whom would then have to move to be near one of the many nuclear plants in the state/country). i lived within 20 miles of a nuclear plant for a small part of my life and plenty of people in the area had nothing to do with the plant. i think the more important bit is having wide and diverse representation and limiting the corruptibility of any individual representative.