←back to thread

360 points namlem | 4 comments | | HN request time: 1.134s | source
Show context
retrac ◴[] No.44562032[source]
The technical term is sortition. And it is my pet unorthodox political position. The legislature should be replaced with an assembly of citizens picked by lottery.
replies(22): >>44562101 #>>44562171 #>>44562282 #>>44562381 #>>44562409 #>>44562535 #>>44562693 #>>44562879 #>>44562889 #>>44562956 #>>44562965 #>>44563058 #>>44563183 #>>44563590 #>>44564320 #>>44564823 #>>44565767 #>>44566093 #>>44572194 #>>44572213 #>>44572628 #>>44573260 #
marcusverus ◴[] No.44562956[source]
With a little back-of-the-envelope math, this would mean that congress would contain:

> 9 members with IQs under 70 (i.e. mentally handicapped) > 52 members with IQs under 85 > 217 members at or under an IQ of 100 > 370 members with an IQ below the (presumptive) current congressional average of ~115

Congress is terrible, but it's hard to imagine it could be improved by making it less intelligent.

If you could incorporate the OP's point about limited eligibility and "directly select candidates at random for positions from an eligibility pool", then a "random" process would likely be superior to elections.

replies(1): >>44564846 #
1. breuleux ◴[] No.44564846[source]
If you have fifty bright and highly competent people, I'm skeptical that adding fifty idiots is going to make much of a difference. Most idiots will accept meritocratic authority if they can be convinced that their needs are taken into account (which they should). Some will obstruct, but probably not enough to significantly derail anything, and the good-faith idiots will bring information and perspectives that wouldn't be considered if they weren't there, so they aren't exactly useless.

In fact, I would argue that idiots in elected bodies are a lot more likely to do damage than random idiots, because they are more likely to be narcissists, and being elected boosts their sense of self-worth. And of course, the most damage is often caused by the most intelligent of them, because the main problem is acting in bad faith, not a lack of wits.

replies(1): >>44566635 #
2. tptacek ◴[] No.44566855[source]
The ditch? You're alive in the greatest year in the entirety of human history to be alive.
3. aspenmayer ◴[] No.44568173[source]
[flagged]
replies(1): >>44637522 #
4. aspenmayer ◴[] No.44640657{4}[source]
Where in my comment is a personal attack? I’m saying what I think and what I feel. I’m not saying what you are or aren’t.

> > I think you have major issues with relating to other people if you’re throwing around words like idiot while expecting us to take you seriously. You’re being honest right now, and it makes me think your views are un-American, and it makes me think that you don’t understand the Constitution at all. It makes me feel that we do not have shared values or common cause. I don’t know why you think that this kind of thinking is what the US needs more of, especially to get “back on track” whatever that might mean.

> > I will not allow you to limit my franchise or that of any other citizen, so help me. Your comment is bad and you should feel bad.

> We'll see.

I’m pretty sure that we have enough information to determine that your comment was and still is bad.