4 ms·
Perhaps this will cause us to start electing experts instead of lifelong politicians? The number of doctors, engineers, and scientists in Congress is pathetic.
by mp05 2y ago
Perhaps this will cause us to start electing experts instead of lifelong politicians? The number of doctors, engineers, and scientists in Congress is pathetic.
- ldf80g804 2y agoI keep telling people. Make stochastic democracy happen, where every 4 years randomly selected individuals populate the house to have a simple yay/nay vote on senate generated items ( senate can stay as is ). I used to joke about it, but I no longer think I am.
- Nasrudith 2y agoThe main problem with that approach is it makes rigging the 'elections' trivial when probabilistically every result is equally as plausible as another.
- anigbrowl 2y agoThe idea of selecting legislators in a similar manner to jury service is how democracy originally used to be done, and it has a lot going for it in my view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
- mp05 2y agoI'd suggest shrinking the pool somewhat, perhaps by selecting from people involved in state-level politics already? This idea that any random person is fit to be a representative is bonkers to me. The House should be filled with the Common Man, if you will, but I'm certain the authors were envisioning a parvenu bootstrapper like Ben Franklin or a Paul Revere. But the Senate should change too--repeal the 17th amendment and bring the election of US Senators back to the state legislative bodies. It's a key element that made us a Republic and I'm failing to see how we can even refer to ourselves as such since 1913. I find it grating when people say "our democracy" because it is true now, but shouldn't be.
- taylodl 2y agoDevil's advocate: isn't a lifelong politician an expert in politics? Isn't it the case that with so many noobs in Congress nothing is getting done because they simply don't know how to politic to get things done? All they know how to do is run to the nearest TV camera and start slandering everybody they don't like. Then they wonder why they can't broker deals to get what they want. Besides, very few doctors, engineers, and scientists want to have anything to do with politics. They generally abhor the practice of politics and generally don't see it as a skill they need to develop. Without that skill, they'll be just as ineffective as the Congress we have today.
- mp05 2y agoI think one could make an argument that the US system of governance was designed to encourage "politicking" by populist types in the House. Love him or hate him, LBJ was excellent at this sort of thing and an ideal representative. But I've read a lot of Caro and it seems he feels the US Senate has jumped the shark in this regard. The narrative laments the glory days of high-minded debate and the occasional cane beatings, but it's hard to say if that's Caro's actual view. But it's fair to argue the Senate wasn't built for politicking, yet that's what it's devolved into. I'm a political layman, but perhaps popular vote of senators is a terrible idea as it discourages people unwilling to play hardball to get involved... these engineers, doctors, scientists, etc. It takes a special kind of thick skin to be in national office and those type of people don't seem to gravitate to science-based fields, but rather law and professional politics.
- taylodl 2y agoI agree on both counts. The House was, by definition, the populist component of the government. That was the only representation that We The People got. The state legislature was supposed to elect the state senators, and the state legislature was to nominate an even smaller group of electorates to choose the president. But the fact the state legislature elected the state senators reflects your point that the senate was intended to be more "serious."
- 2y ago
- lovethevoid 2y agoThat’ll happen about the same time the Supreme Court stops being used as a political party battleground. So… never.