5 ms·

Great points. I don't have a concrete proposal either, but can I throw some ideas? Among the 3 branches of the Government, the judicial one is the only techno

Great points. I don't have a concrete proposal either, but can I throw some ideas? Among the 3 branches of the Government, the judicial one is the only technocratic one. We can try to replace the Senate with another technocratic body, some sort of "Council of Elders". I'm not sure how you'd determine the qualifications, so my idea is far from fully baked. The opposite direction would be a lottery. Juries are a form of democracy based on lottery. For example, if the House proposes a bill, instead of the Senate having to agree on it, one could subject it to some type of "trial", where you'd have a "Constitutional" judge presiding, and a jury. The judge might be a Supreme Court justice, and would have to explain various aspects of the Constitution to the jury. There would be advocates (maybe from the House?) that represent both the case for and against the law, but finally the determination whether the law should be allowed to be sent to the President for signing should be done by the jury. Obviously this proposal has between zero and nil chances of ever becoming reality, but I think at least in theory it's not really absurd.

dllthomas 5y ago
I think that some variation on sortition could be interesting, although I note that it doesn't compensate for other biases away from "perfectly representative", being itself perfectly representative. As an example of the sort of compensation I meant, a potential proposal (which I'm not actually making but which gives the sense of what I mean) would be to leave the Senate alone but give each State representation in the House such that the total number of representatives across both chambers is (as close as practical to) proportional. This would mean the Senate would be undemocratic in its current direction, but the house would be undemocratic in precisely the opposite direction (in terms of the weights of individual votes, not necessarily in terms of policy), while the President would be chosen (approximately) democratically and overall the system shouldn't lean one way or the other.
- dllthomas 5y ago
  To expand a little on why this isn't something I am actually proposing, beyond my not having anyone in particular to propose it to or any expectation anyone listens, I haven't thought it through as deeply as it deserves. In particular, there are a number of responsibilities assigned to the House of Representatives with the justification (at least notionally) that it is the more... well... representative body. If we make it - of itself - less representative, then we should consider those duties in turn, whether that original justification is well motivated and still important, and whether that should push us to move them elsewhere or change their form. There are doubtless other things that need thinking through, but that's a potentially meaty source of them that comes readily to mind.

dllthomas 5y ago

I think that some variation on sortition could be interesting, although I note that it doesn't compensate for other biases away from "perfectly representative", being itself perfectly representative. As an example of the sort of compensation I meant, a potential proposal (which I'm not actually making but which gives the sense of what I mean) would be to leave the Senate alone but give each State representation in the House such that the total number of representatives across both chambers is (as close as practical to) proportional. This would mean the Senate would be undemocratic in its current direction, but the house would be undemocratic in precisely the opposite direction (in terms of the weights of individual votes, not necessarily in terms of policy), while the President would be chosen (approximately) democratically and overall the system shouldn't lean one way or the other.

dllthomas 5y ago
To expand a little on why this isn't something I am actually proposing, beyond my not having anyone in particular to propose it to or any expectation anyone listens, I haven't thought it through as deeply as it deserves. In particular, there are a number of responsibilities assigned to the House of Representatives with the justification (at least notionally) that it is the more... well... representative body. If we make it - of itself - less representative, then we should consider those duties in turn, whether that original justification is well motivated and still important, and whether that should push us to move them elsewhere or change their form. There are doubtless other things that need thinking through, but that's a potentially meaty source of them that comes readily to mind.