5 ms·

I'm sure its not an original idea but I always thought a more "fair" system would be all 18+ citizens would automatically be entered in a lottery every year tha

I'm sure its not an original idea but I always thought a more "fair" system would be all 18+ citizens would automatically be entered in a lottery every year that would fill 1/5 of the seats of a unicameral legislature of 500 seats. The winners would be given something insane, like $1 billion dollars for each member, at the end of 5 years of service with a yearly stipend of $1 million a year during their service. This would get money out of politics the only way I can think of, which is randomly injecting ridiculous amounts to random people.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Am I reading this right? We're going to pay $100Bn per year to 100 people chosen at random to run the country? Why would they have any incentive to do a good job? Also, why would they have any desire? Also, that seems like a lot of money. >95% of people would be happy with the $1M per year salary.
- jtr1 4y ago
  I think the point was more about reducing the saliency of bribes/lobbying than the particular dollar amount.
- noasaservice 4y ago
  The number needs to be effectively an unbribeable number. If you're selected for public service, then you're expected to do good for the country, and not just a specific monied interest. And that means not having to worry about money ever again. You win capitalism. Done. Have fun. Live your life. That could also be done with annuities so that they get a "allowance" each month until dead.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    Why wouldn't you take the money AND the bribes? If you have a system in place that can find and punish bribes - why not pay them a reasonable amount of money - and just eliminate bribes without spending $0.1T per year...
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      Bribes need to increase proportionate to salary to maintain the same risk/reward calculation. Famously, Singapore maintains a very effective, clean civil service by paying market rates, and sometimes for some ministers that is actually millions of dollars a year.
      - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
        Okay, but are they choosing these people at random? Your worth should be based on your skills (meritocracy) - not by winning the lottery and how much people will pay to influence you (luck).
        noasaservice 4y ago
        > Your worth should be based on your skills (meritocracy) And with deciding "merit" are the kingmakers, or the "meritmakers". Congratulations. You now have created a new class of people who can take bribes and subvert leadership under the term "merit". And, explain how one would calculate "merit"? In my experiences, meritocracies are monocultures that put forth their own biases as "merit".
    - altruios 4y ago
      people assume people will be satisfied with any (large) amount of money. 1: money isn't the only form of bribery. 2: people who want more... will always want more and will never stop taking. 3: there is no good way to tell a person from someone who wants to give to help, and someone who wants to give to get something in return. A more effective if morally dark methodology is publicly and viscously execute people who take bribes in this system.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    If winning at capitalism was an antidote to the desire to do dodgy deals, we wouldn't have to worry about the effect of moneyed interests on politics in the first place. As it is, I'm not sure the billion does anything other than ensure that the one policy absolutely every randomly-appointed political figure from the vague woolly liberal to the literal neo-Nazi agrees upon is zero inheritance tax...
Zamiel_Snawley 4y ago
I believe this would defeat the purpose of sortition. Giving all representatives such a large amount of money would instantly make them unrepresentative of the population they were selected from. They would all be in the uber-wealthy class, and be incented to make laws that favor that small subset of people.
throwaway894345 4y ago
Man, if social media is any indication of how ordinary people would govern, I'm not sure it's a great thing. Granted, maybe ordinary people are quite a lot more moderate or emotionally stable than the likes of Twitter and Reddit.
cmurf 4y ago
Whose original idea is it? I actually think it's a wonderful thought puzzle at the least. The two problems I have with it though, are reflected in Lincoln's 1st inaugural address: * His criticism of the idea that only the Supreme Court can determine constitutionality: the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal * His assertion that rule by a minority leads to tyranny or despotism. If the thought puzzle could be extended by substituting the current closed party primary system with random selection initially - but still have a general election to choose among those candidates, you might find a way of creating a random-democracy hybrid.
austinl 4y ago
This general idea is known as "sortition", and actually has quite a long history. In the United States, and many countries, sortition still has a role–people are randomly selected for jury duty. However, in ancient Athens, one could become a magistrate (~a small-town mayor in modern times) through random selection. There was a term limit of one year, and you were only allowed to serve once in a lifetime. You also had to go through a basic examination called the dokimasia to be deemed competent. Several other civilizations have used this method over history, typically with the intention of preventing corruption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
jjav 4y ago
Agreed. I've always felt such a randomized selection is the only way to have a representative set of people. The people in legislative positions have a lot of power and there is no way to prevent that since the whole point is for them to have power to run the country. Thus, it inherently attracts the sort of people who crave power and influence, which is exactly the sort of people who should not be allowed to have it. So the only solution I can think of is to make it impossible to actively seek those positions of power, by assigning them randomly.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

Am I reading this right? We're going to pay $100Bn per year to 100 people chosen at random to run the country? Why would they have any incentive to do a good job? Also, why would they have any desire? Also, that seems like a lot of money. >95% of people would be happy with the $1M per year salary.

jtr1 4y ago
I think the point was more about reducing the saliency of bribes/lobbying than the particular dollar amount.
noasaservice 4y ago
The number needs to be effectively an unbribeable number. If you're selected for public service, then you're expected to do good for the country, and not just a specific monied interest. And that means not having to worry about money ever again. You win capitalism. Done. Have fun. Live your life. That could also be done with annuities so that they get a "allowance" each month until dead.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Why wouldn't you take the money AND the bribes? If you have a system in place that can find and punish bribes - why not pay them a reasonable amount of money - and just eliminate bribes without spending $0.1T per year...
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Bribes need to increase proportionate to salary to maintain the same risk/reward calculation. Famously, Singapore maintains a very effective, clean civil service by paying market rates, and sometimes for some ministers that is actually millions of dollars a year.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
      Okay, but are they choosing these people at random? Your worth should be based on your skills (meritocracy) - not by winning the lottery and how much people will pay to influence you (luck).
      - noasaservice 4y ago
        > Your worth should be based on your skills (meritocracy) And with deciding "merit" are the kingmakers, or the "meritmakers". Congratulations. You now have created a new class of people who can take bribes and subvert leadership under the term "merit". And, explain how one would calculate "merit"? In my experiences, meritocracies are monocultures that put forth their own biases as "merit".
  - altruios 4y ago
    people assume people will be satisfied with any (large) amount of money. 1: money isn't the only form of bribery. 2: people who want more... will always want more and will never stop taking. 3: there is no good way to tell a person from someone who wants to give to help, and someone who wants to give to get something in return. A more effective if morally dark methodology is publicly and viscously execute people who take bribes in this system.
- notahacker 4y ago
  If winning at capitalism was an antidote to the desire to do dodgy deals, we wouldn't have to worry about the effect of moneyed interests on politics in the first place. As it is, I'm not sure the billion does anything other than ensure that the one policy absolutely every randomly-appointed political figure from the vague woolly liberal to the literal neo-Nazi agrees upon is zero inheritance tax...

Zamiel_Snawley 4y ago

I believe this would defeat the purpose of sortition. Giving all representatives such a large amount of money would instantly make them unrepresentative of the population they were selected from. They would all be in the uber-wealthy class, and be incented to make laws that favor that small subset of people.

throwaway894345 4y ago

Man, if social media is any indication of how ordinary people would govern, I'm not sure it's a great thing. Granted, maybe ordinary people are quite a lot more moderate or emotionally stable than the likes of Twitter and Reddit.

cmurf 4y ago

Whose original idea is it? I actually think it's a wonderful thought puzzle at the least. The two problems I have with it though, are reflected in Lincoln's 1st inaugural address: * His criticism of the idea that only the Supreme Court can determine constitutionality: the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal * His assertion that rule by a minority leads to tyranny or despotism. If the thought puzzle could be extended by substituting the current closed party primary system with random selection initially - but still have a general election to choose among those candidates, you might find a way of creating a random-democracy hybrid.

austinl 4y ago

This general idea is known as "sortition", and actually has quite a long history. In the United States, and many countries, sortition still has a role–people are randomly selected for jury duty. However, in ancient Athens, one could become a magistrate (~a small-town mayor in modern times) through random selection. There was a term limit of one year, and you were only allowed to serve once in a lifetime. You also had to go through a basic examination called the dokimasia to be deemed competent. Several other civilizations have used this method over history, typically with the intention of preventing corruption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

jjav 4y ago

Agreed. I've always felt such a randomized selection is the only way to have a representative set of people. The people in legislative positions have a lot of power and there is no way to prevent that since the whole point is for them to have power to run the country. Thus, it inherently attracts the sort of people who crave power and influence, which is exactly the sort of people who should not be allowed to have it. So the only solution I can think of is to make it impossible to actively seek those positions of power, by assigning them randomly.