4 ms·

> so people wouldn't have to quit their jobs You would have to work out corruption of the common Joe here. Employers hold massive sway over their employees, an

by teeray 1y ago

> so people wouldn't have to quit their jobs You would have to work out corruption of the common Joe here. Employers hold massive sway over their employees, and by nature of employing lots of people would have a pretty good chance of employing some fraction of the government. It would need to be possible for these randomly-selected individuals to enact policies that work counter to the interests of their employers without them fearing for their livelihood after their term. Otherwise, we just make lobbying cheap or free: “all of you—vote for this or else.” I think, at minimum, companies should be unable to terminate such individuals for some cooldown period after their term.

krisoft 1y ago
Or keep their deliberations and votes secret. "Hey boss. I don't know what you are talking about. Of course I voted for the thing you wanted me to vote for. It must have been all the other suckers."
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  the vote to increase minimum wage was unanimous Krisoft!
  - krisoft 1y ago
    :D Good point. I was thinking about unanimous votes and how they would leak information. Didn't want to over-complicate my comment, but I have a proposal for those too. What I think we should do, is if the votes are close to unanimous as a matter of policy we report them only as "close to unanimous" without going into numbers. So for example if we have 100 delegates, and 95 voted for, and 5 against we just say "the vote was close to unanimous". And we do the same thing if the true vote was 100/0. All which would get published is that "the vote was close to unanimous", and the actual tally would get destroyed. Maybe the threshold could be 10 people. So if the vote was 89/11 we would still publish that, but anything more one sided would just get reported as "close to unanimous" up to and including real unanimous votes. It would still communicate the same thing: an overwhelming majority of delegates agreed on the thing being voted on. But would keep a fig-leaf of deniability for those who might otherwise be pressured. That being said. I don't think people would vote unanimously on raising the minimum wage. Especially if the number of delegates is high (100 or above). You would get some people who either own a small business, or worry about the economy.
- harimau777 1y ago
  It seems to me that employers would just say: "Well you failed to get everyone else to vote for it, so you're fired."
GolfPopper 1y ago
Treat it like jury duty or reservists called up for military service. To the best of my knowledge, both of those already have legal protections ensuring your job is there when you return.

by teeray 1y ago

krisoft 1y ago

Or keep their deliberations and votes secret. "Hey boss. I don't know what you are talking about. Of course I voted for the thing you wanted me to vote for. It must have been all the other suckers."

bryanrasmussen 1y ago
the vote to increase minimum wage was unanimous Krisoft!
- krisoft 1y ago
  :D Good point. I was thinking about unanimous votes and how they would leak information. Didn't want to over-complicate my comment, but I have a proposal for those too. What I think we should do, is if the votes are close to unanimous as a matter of policy we report them only as "close to unanimous" without going into numbers. So for example if we have 100 delegates, and 95 voted for, and 5 against we just say "the vote was close to unanimous". And we do the same thing if the true vote was 100/0. All which would get published is that "the vote was close to unanimous", and the actual tally would get destroyed. Maybe the threshold could be 10 people. So if the vote was 89/11 we would still publish that, but anything more one sided would just get reported as "close to unanimous" up to and including real unanimous votes. It would still communicate the same thing: an overwhelming majority of delegates agreed on the thing being voted on. But would keep a fig-leaf of deniability for those who might otherwise be pressured. That being said. I don't think people would vote unanimously on raising the minimum wage. Especially if the number of delegates is high (100 or above). You would get some people who either own a small business, or worry about the economy.
harimau777 1y ago
It seems to me that employers would just say: "Well you failed to get everyone else to vote for it, so you're fired."

GolfPopper 1y ago

Treat it like jury duty or reservists called up for military service. To the best of my knowledge, both of those already have legal protections ensuring your job is there when you return.