5 ms·

I think we could put every American citizen in a hat who: Has voted for the last 3 elections No criminal record Over the age of 25 HS diploma with a 3.0 GPA

I think we could put every American citizen in a hat who: Has voted for the last 3 elections No criminal record Over the age of 25 HS diploma with a 3.0 GPA and pick Congress at random with fixed terms and end up with better than what we have now: a bunch of lying, corrupt careerists that do nothing but serve their corporate donor masters. Contrary to popular belief, you can be incompetent, unintelligent, and bereft of integrity and be rich, I know these people personally. Being rich is not a good litmus test for public office which is what we have now.

slackfan 4y ago
Drop the diploma req, and sure, that's a good idea.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  At least drop the GPA requirement. I found most homework annoying and unnecessary, so I skipped it but I aced the tests. Frustrated the hell out of my parents and teachers and led to lower overall grades, but I learned everything I needed to and turned out alright in the end.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
We'd probably get better results if we inverted your criteria honestly. Someone who didn't graduate high school and has a criminal record has first-hand experience with the worst our system has to offer, likely close ties to people it is failing badly right now.
- rPlayer6554 4y ago
  Just because someone has experience with the criminal system doesn't mean they know how to fix it properly
- dismantlethesun 4y ago
  The high school degree is necessary to ensure the person can understand the choices presented to them. Otherwise they will just be snowed by experts who claim one thing or the other. The lack of a criminal record is necessary won’t just commit fraud or accept bribes from day one. And also overall, people have to accept who is randomly chosen to be the president. Having a criminal with a elementary school education chosen would just lead to riots. It’s one thing if they were elected, but if it’s a choice made by a “random” system then that’s not acceptable.
  - oceanplexian 4y ago
    Why not replace a diploma with a Net Worth or Income requirement. Someone with a 2.0 GPA, but has at least $10,000 in savings is clearly more fiscally responsible than someone who has a 4.0 GPA but is in debt. Something similar is already the law for accredited investors.
    - notahacker 4y ago
      > Someone with a 2.0 GPA, but has at least $10,000 in savings is clearly more fiscally responsible than someone who has a 4.0 GPA but is in debt. Or maybe the second person was born into a low income family and is borrowing to invest in their future, and the first person is useless at more than just academics but has a trust fund. Accredited investor laws are because rich idiots can afford to lose money, not because their judgement is considered superior.
    - hervature 4y ago
      That makes no sense. The vast majority of people go in debt when they get a mortgage and don't come out until at least a decade later. Debt is a tool when used properly.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > The high school degree is necessary to ensure the person can understand the choices presented to them. I disagree. I think any criteria for sortition harms it's legitimacy and creates an avenue to disenfranchise large segments of the population. I am a big fan of sortition though, as I think elections select worse leaders with worse traits than the average citizen while the way we fund elections actively corrupts the few decent leaders we do manage to elect. Edit: I also wouldn't support inserting sortition directly into our current selection process or ever for selecting a chief executive. Sortition only works if you have enough random picks to get a good representative sample. Otherwise the risks of selecting a massive outlier are to high.
    - dismantlethesun 4y ago
      I do agree that it can be used to disenfranchise people, however it’s unavoidable to create legitimacy. If we didn’t have a minor education requirement (minor because high school is free and is seen as the basic education that everyone has), then an age requirement can be substituted. For example, invoking the current age requirement of 35 to become president if you do not have a high school education so at least we know that you have life experience as a substitute. As for the criminal requirement, felons already can’t vote and participate in the electoral system so it’s questionable that many would accept felons being “randomly” chosen to lead the country. One could easily imagine and protest that a mafia kingpin who wins office by random chance did so by subverting the lottery. True or not, it’s believable enough to destroy legitimacy and throw the country into chaos.
boole1854 4y ago
This is called "sortition", and Wikipedia has an interesting discussion of the history and pros/cons of such an approach. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition I'd personally love to see it tried at a state or local level first.
drewcoo 4y ago
Congress? Ok. As long as we don't have that same high standard for POTUS. I don't know if 45 or 46 would have qualified.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  You aren’t a felon if you never get prosecuted.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Boom. There are tons of leaders who would not be eligible for office (felonies) if they were charged. Once they take office they're basically untouchable too.
- lostcolony 4y ago
  Not sure the problem? I mean...I'd happily take a mulligan on those elections.
zehaeva 4y ago
Sortition like this is an interesting idea, but you have forgotten that people who meet those criteria can be emotionally disturbed, mentally compromised, in a coma, physically unable to perform. Also, what level of a criminal record? Only Felonies (i.e. "serious crimes") and above? Misdemeanors? Even a traffic ticket? I'll also point out that not all HS diplomas are equal, HS in a few states like NY, Cali, Michigan, are far more rigorous/difficult than schools in say Alabama or Mississippi. I'm reminded of efforts that most people put forth in limiting suffrage, any criteria you come up with tends to be very blind. I've personally thought that Sortition is a great idea, but I thought using a system more like Jury duty would be better. Grab your random candidates and then have them interviewed by a few bipartisan lawyers and judges to make sure they're not obviously horrific people.
- warble 4y ago
  Horrific as we've recently seen is horrifically subjective. And we don't do much better at voting. I'd pick a few objective rules (perhaps the ones above) and leave it at that.
madsbuch 4y ago
The problem with a system like this, is that the criminal justice system and educational system is now being politicized. If you want some specific people not to assert power in the system, then you create an educational system that gives them low grades or a criminal justice system that ensures they have a criminal record.
AaronM 4y ago
I think done right, this might work. However, one concern I have is the same concern I have with jury trials. Its easy enough to get out of jury duty, and anecdotally it seems like juries are usually filled with folks that aren't quite able to grasp how to take advantage of the system. Would the same thing happen here? Second issue, one I have thought a lot about. Would these same people write legislation or just propose it and vote on it? I think the challenge is also writing good legislation. Lastly, you have to worry that corporations will just offer folks in this new congress paid positions to support business friendly legislation, when they are replaced. That would probably be cheap for them. Edit: Maybe not though, if the number of issues each group worked on before rotating out was very small.
cycomanic 4y ago
I also have issues with the other criteria but in particular > Over the age of 25 We have a situation (not just in the US) where old people make decisions that have strong repercussions for the younger generations and the ones affected the most can't do anything about it. If anything we should be lowering the age to vote and get into public office. Clearly the older generations have shown that they are incapable of fixing the real issues.
- therealdrag0 4y ago
  The world is complex as are its problems. Older folks seem to see that more. There’s a reason wars and religions prey on the young. I think that is valuable enough to have a minimum limit. I’m only in my early 30s but I sure had a lot more wrong ideas in early 20s.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    I think that's overly simplistic. Look at who is starting the wars, it's almost always old men. Right at the moment it is a >70 year old, while the ones dying are the young people.
- twh270 4y ago
  Very generally speaking: Older people acquire life experience and wisdom, which lets them make better decisions; but their decisions are typically conservative as they are invested in "the way things are today". (It's worked fine this way for 50 years, why change now?) Younger people have fresh ideas and less investment in "the way things are today", but lack the maturity to make wise decisions. (This is hot garbage, we need to completely throw it away and start from scratch.) See also, we already have laws regarding age of candidacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy_laws_in_the_U...
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    > Very generally speaking: > Older people acquire life experience and wisdom, which lets them make better decisions; but their decisions are typically conservative as they are invested in "the way things are today". (It's worked fine this way for 50 years, why change now?) I'd like to see some actual statistics on this. It has certainly been the case that many of the companies that resulted in big economic changes were made by <30 year olds in the last decades. So there's at least a counterpoint that older people make better economic decisions. > Younger people have fresh ideas and less investment in "the way things are today", but lack the maturity to make wise decisions. (This is hot garbage, we need to completely throw it away and start from scratch.) > See also, we already have laws regarding age of candidacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy_laws_in_the_U https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy_laws_in_the_U... I'm aware of it, and I was directly alluding to these, moreover I think it's outrageous that > 80 year olds can still hold office (some of them with quite obvious dementia). I think there is very strong scientific evidence that beyond 80 years your mental capabilities significantly declines. So if it is about good decision making, why are these people allowed to continue?

slackfan 4y ago

Drop the diploma req, and sure, that's a good idea.

jaywalk 4y ago
At least drop the GPA requirement. I found most homework annoying and unnecessary, so I skipped it but I aced the tests. Frustrated the hell out of my parents and teachers and led to lower overall grades, but I learned everything I needed to and turned out alright in the end.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

We'd probably get better results if we inverted your criteria honestly. Someone who didn't graduate high school and has a criminal record has first-hand experience with the worst our system has to offer, likely close ties to people it is failing badly right now.

rPlayer6554 4y ago
Just because someone has experience with the criminal system doesn't mean they know how to fix it properly
dismantlethesun 4y ago
The high school degree is necessary to ensure the person can understand the choices presented to them. Otherwise they will just be snowed by experts who claim one thing or the other. The lack of a criminal record is necessary won’t just commit fraud or accept bribes from day one. And also overall, people have to accept who is randomly chosen to be the president. Having a criminal with a elementary school education chosen would just lead to riots. It’s one thing if they were elected, but if it’s a choice made by a “random” system then that’s not acceptable.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  Why not replace a diploma with a Net Worth or Income requirement. Someone with a 2.0 GPA, but has at least $10,000 in savings is clearly more fiscally responsible than someone who has a 4.0 GPA but is in debt. Something similar is already the law for accredited investors.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    > Someone with a 2.0 GPA, but has at least $10,000 in savings is clearly more fiscally responsible than someone who has a 4.0 GPA but is in debt. Or maybe the second person was born into a low income family and is borrowing to invest in their future, and the first person is useless at more than just academics but has a trust fund. Accredited investor laws are because rich idiots can afford to lose money, not because their judgement is considered superior.
  - hervature 4y ago
    That makes no sense. The vast majority of people go in debt when they get a mortgage and don't come out until at least a decade later. Debt is a tool when used properly.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > The high school degree is necessary to ensure the person can understand the choices presented to them. I disagree. I think any criteria for sortition harms it's legitimacy and creates an avenue to disenfranchise large segments of the population. I am a big fan of sortition though, as I think elections select worse leaders with worse traits than the average citizen while the way we fund elections actively corrupts the few decent leaders we do manage to elect. Edit: I also wouldn't support inserting sortition directly into our current selection process or ever for selecting a chief executive. Sortition only works if you have enough random picks to get a good representative sample. Otherwise the risks of selecting a massive outlier are to high.
  - dismantlethesun 4y ago
    I do agree that it can be used to disenfranchise people, however it’s unavoidable to create legitimacy. If we didn’t have a minor education requirement (minor because high school is free and is seen as the basic education that everyone has), then an age requirement can be substituted. For example, invoking the current age requirement of 35 to become president if you do not have a high school education so at least we know that you have life experience as a substitute. As for the criminal requirement, felons already can’t vote and participate in the electoral system so it’s questionable that many would accept felons being “randomly” chosen to lead the country. One could easily imagine and protest that a mafia kingpin who wins office by random chance did so by subverting the lottery. True or not, it’s believable enough to destroy legitimacy and throw the country into chaos.

boole1854 4y ago

This is called "sortition", and Wikipedia has an interesting discussion of the history and pros/cons of such an approach. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition I'd personally love to see it tried at a state or local level first.

drewcoo 4y ago

Congress? Ok. As long as we don't have that same high standard for POTUS. I don't know if 45 or 46 would have qualified.

the_only_law 4y ago
You aren’t a felon if you never get prosecuted.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Boom. There are tons of leaders who would not be eligible for office (felonies) if they were charged. Once they take office they're basically untouchable too.
lostcolony 4y ago
Not sure the problem? I mean...I'd happily take a mulligan on those elections.

zehaeva 4y ago

Sortition like this is an interesting idea, but you have forgotten that people who meet those criteria can be emotionally disturbed, mentally compromised, in a coma, physically unable to perform. Also, what level of a criminal record? Only Felonies (i.e. "serious crimes") and above? Misdemeanors? Even a traffic ticket? I'll also point out that not all HS diplomas are equal, HS in a few states like NY, Cali, Michigan, are far more rigorous/difficult than schools in say Alabama or Mississippi. I'm reminded of efforts that most people put forth in limiting suffrage, any criteria you come up with tends to be very blind. I've personally thought that Sortition is a great idea, but I thought using a system more like Jury duty would be better. Grab your random candidates and then have them interviewed by a few bipartisan lawyers and judges to make sure they're not obviously horrific people.

warble 4y ago
Horrific as we've recently seen is horrifically subjective. And we don't do much better at voting. I'd pick a few objective rules (perhaps the ones above) and leave it at that.

madsbuch 4y ago

The problem with a system like this, is that the criminal justice system and educational system is now being politicized. If you want some specific people not to assert power in the system, then you create an educational system that gives them low grades or a criminal justice system that ensures they have a criminal record.

AaronM 4y ago

I think done right, this might work. However, one concern I have is the same concern I have with jury trials. Its easy enough to get out of jury duty, and anecdotally it seems like juries are usually filled with folks that aren't quite able to grasp how to take advantage of the system. Would the same thing happen here? Second issue, one I have thought a lot about. Would these same people write legislation or just propose it and vote on it? I think the challenge is also writing good legislation. Lastly, you have to worry that corporations will just offer folks in this new congress paid positions to support business friendly legislation, when they are replaced. That would probably be cheap for them. Edit: Maybe not though, if the number of issues each group worked on before rotating out was very small.

cycomanic 4y ago

I also have issues with the other criteria but in particular > Over the age of 25 We have a situation (not just in the US) where old people make decisions that have strong repercussions for the younger generations and the ones affected the most can't do anything about it. If anything we should be lowering the age to vote and get into public office. Clearly the older generations have shown that they are incapable of fixing the real issues.

therealdrag0 4y ago
The world is complex as are its problems. Older folks seem to see that more. There’s a reason wars and religions prey on the young. I think that is valuable enough to have a minimum limit. I’m only in my early 30s but I sure had a lot more wrong ideas in early 20s.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  I think that's overly simplistic. Look at who is starting the wars, it's almost always old men. Right at the moment it is a >70 year old, while the ones dying are the young people.
twh270 4y ago
Very generally speaking: Older people acquire life experience and wisdom, which lets them make better decisions; but their decisions are typically conservative as they are invested in "the way things are today". (It's worked fine this way for 50 years, why change now?) Younger people have fresh ideas and less investment in "the way things are today", but lack the maturity to make wise decisions. (This is hot garbage, we need to completely throw it away and start from scratch.) See also, we already have laws regarding age of candidacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy_laws_in_the_U...
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > Very generally speaking: > Older people acquire life experience and wisdom, which lets them make better decisions; but their decisions are typically conservative as they are invested in "the way things are today". (It's worked fine this way for 50 years, why change now?) I'd like to see some actual statistics on this. It has certainly been the case that many of the companies that resulted in big economic changes were made by <30 year olds in the last decades. So there's at least a counterpoint that older people make better economic decisions. > Younger people have fresh ideas and less investment in "the way things are today", but lack the maturity to make wise decisions. (This is hot garbage, we need to completely throw it away and start from scratch.) > See also, we already have laws regarding age of candidacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy_laws_in_the_U https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy_laws_in_the_U... I'm aware of it, and I was directly alluding to these, moreover I think it's outrageous that > 80 year olds can still hold office (some of them with quite obvious dementia). I think there is very strong scientific evidence that beyond 80 years your mental capabilities significantly declines. So if it is about good decision making, why are these people allowed to continue?