5 ms·

> There is a non-trivial amount of nuance and compromise that goes in lawmaking. We just passed that "big beautiful bill" and it was quite clear nobody knew or

> There is a non-trivial amount of nuance and compromise that goes in lawmaking. We just passed that "big beautiful bill" and it was quite clear nobody knew or cared what was in it, beyond it being "trump's bill he wants". I'm guessing staffers and lobbyists had a far more detailed understanding of their portions than any elected official did. It's a reasonable guess that 100 randos would actually write a better bill.

esafak 1y ago
But the status quo is considered anomalous by most of the world, so I would not use it as a benchmark.
- rolandog 1y ago
  I'm all in for some continuous improvement experiments for democracy: - modest proposal: yes, have X random people in government, but have a Y-month paid training period before they serve for Z years; ALSO ensure their families want for nothing (read, a decent non-luxurious lifestyle), but prohibit receiving money from lobbyists, PACs, gifts, etc... AND, ensure they get reintegrated into society in a nonpolitical field (with some exceptions) by also offering Y-month long paid training in different fields. The corruption costs reduction would significantly outweigh any increase in payroll and training.
  - pstuart 1y ago
    "Simple" remedies for American democracy: * Campaign Finance Reform * End Citizens United * Ranked choice voting (or a variant of same). Technically totally feasible, just impossible due to the current owners.
    - zimpenfish 1y ago
      Also * Expand the Supreme Court
      - jfyi 1y ago
        I'd add: * Expand the House (and make provisions that keep it updated with each census). * Statehood for US territories. The systemic problems with our democracy seem pretty clear, really.
        andyferris 1y ago
        > Expand the House (and make provisions that keep it updated with each census). Interesting. Looking in from a country with a smaller lower house, I think members in the US are already so numerous they seem to fade to the background and their survival becomes mostly about party politics not making a good impression on their district. It's not like most of them could make a good speech while most members are present and listening. Only senators seem individually important enough to make a name for themselves (with the exception of the speaker etc). But I've never lived and voted in the US so maybe I'm missing something important here.
        thmsths 1y ago
        I absolutely agree. You are just moving the lack of representation to the next level if you increase the size of the house. House members need to know each others and works with each others to be effective. And this is where math says things turn ugly, the size of the graph connecting all house members grows exponentially, until at a certain size (which I believe we have already reached) it is simply unmanageable. the solution might be to add yet another layer in the system. Naively, it seems that democracy is hard to scale (this does not mean that we should no try though). But last time I tried to bring up that concern on HN it did not go well...
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        Members of the House of Representatives’ first obligation to my view is knowing their constituents. Knowing each other may not help as much as you may think unless you’re on a committee. As the population increases, members of the House were meant to increase. This increasing size has been arrested.
    - detourdog 1y ago
      We could also increase the membership of the house beyond 435 members. This number was capped in 1911 when the population was much smaller.
    - coredog64 1y ago
      > End Citizens United So no more union political contributions?
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  Well, it's our benchmark, because it's our status quo. That is, you measure any proposed change for here against the way it currently works here, not the way it works in country X.
  - esafak 1y ago
    It is anomalous in the historical context of the same country.
    - sdenton4 1y ago
      Otoh, the degradation of democracy into oligarchy and then tyranny was called by Socrates...
- TremendousJudge 1y ago
  Actually, "right wing government gets elected and gets a huge omnibus bill passed that the parliament didn't even read" has been a worldwide trend for some years now. Closest example that comes to mind is probably Argentina, which managed to pass its own controversial right-wing omnibus bill in June last year [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Bases_and_Starting_Points_for_the_Freedom_of_Argentines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Bases_and_Starting_Poin...
- underlipton 1y ago
  Anomalies cause extinction events.
shiandow 1y ago
For what it is worth they probably wouldn't write the bill, just vote on it.
- abirch 1y ago
  If they wouldn't write or read the bill, they'd be like modern day politicians. Or I guess politicians in general. “Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” Mark Twain
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

esafak 1y ago

But the status quo is considered anomalous by most of the world, so I would not use it as a benchmark.

rolandog 1y ago
I'm all in for some continuous improvement experiments for democracy: - modest proposal: yes, have X random people in government, but have a Y-month paid training period before they serve for Z years; ALSO ensure their families want for nothing (read, a decent non-luxurious lifestyle), but prohibit receiving money from lobbyists, PACs, gifts, etc... AND, ensure they get reintegrated into society in a nonpolitical field (with some exceptions) by also offering Y-month long paid training in different fields. The corruption costs reduction would significantly outweigh any increase in payroll and training.
- pstuart 1y ago
  "Simple" remedies for American democracy: * Campaign Finance Reform * End Citizens United * Ranked choice voting (or a variant of same). Technically totally feasible, just impossible due to the current owners.
  - zimpenfish 1y ago
    Also * Expand the Supreme Court
    - jfyi 1y ago
      I'd add: * Expand the House (and make provisions that keep it updated with each census). * Statehood for US territories. The systemic problems with our democracy seem pretty clear, really.
      - andyferris 1y ago
        > Expand the House (and make provisions that keep it updated with each census). Interesting. Looking in from a country with a smaller lower house, I think members in the US are already so numerous they seem to fade to the background and their survival becomes mostly about party politics not making a good impression on their district. It's not like most of them could make a good speech while most members are present and listening. Only senators seem individually important enough to make a name for themselves (with the exception of the speaker etc). But I've never lived and voted in the US so maybe I'm missing something important here.
        thmsths 1y ago
        I absolutely agree. You are just moving the lack of representation to the next level if you increase the size of the house. House members need to know each others and works with each others to be effective. And this is where math says things turn ugly, the size of the graph connecting all house members grows exponentially, until at a certain size (which I believe we have already reached) it is simply unmanageable. the solution might be to add yet another layer in the system. Naively, it seems that democracy is hard to scale (this does not mean that we should no try though). But last time I tried to bring up that concern on HN it did not go well...
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        Members of the House of Representatives’ first obligation to my view is knowing their constituents. Knowing each other may not help as much as you may think unless you’re on a committee. As the population increases, members of the House were meant to increase. This increasing size has been arrested.
  - detourdog 1y ago
    We could also increase the membership of the house beyond 435 members. This number was capped in 1911 when the population was much smaller.
  - coredog64 1y ago
    > End Citizens United So no more union political contributions?
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
Well, it's our benchmark, because it's our status quo. That is, you measure any proposed change for here against the way it currently works here, not the way it works in country X.
- esafak 1y ago
  It is anomalous in the historical context of the same country.
  - sdenton4 1y ago
    Otoh, the degradation of democracy into oligarchy and then tyranny was called by Socrates...
TremendousJudge 1y ago
Actually, "right wing government gets elected and gets a huge omnibus bill passed that the parliament didn't even read" has been a worldwide trend for some years now. Closest example that comes to mind is probably Argentina, which managed to pass its own controversial right-wing omnibus bill in June last year [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Bases_and_Starting_Points_for_the_Freedom_of_Argentines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Bases_and_Starting_Poin...
underlipton 1y ago
Anomalies cause extinction events.

shiandow 1y ago

For what it is worth they probably wouldn't write the bill, just vote on it.

abirch 1y ago
If they wouldn't write or read the bill, they'd be like modern day politicians. Or I guess politicians in general. “Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” Mark Twain

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]