←back to thread

360 points namlem | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
gameman144 ◴[] No.44562101[source]
This may show that I'm biased, but the idea of a randomized group of citizens making the law of the land scares the heck out of me. There is a non-trivial amount of nuance and compromise that goes in lawmaking.

Now, the idea of electing a few thousand representatives and having sortition determine who is actually selected is something I could feasibly get behind.

replies(14): >>44562205 #>>44562207 #>>44562350 #>>44562367 #>>44562501 #>>44562713 #>>44562716 #>>44562771 #>>44563329 #>>44563537 #>>44564233 #>>44564610 #>>44569821 #>>44571062 #
woooooo ◴[] No.44562350[source]
> 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.

replies(3): >>44562474 #>>44562684 #>>44562717 #
esafak ◴[] No.44562474[source]
But the status quo is considered anomalous by most of the world, so I would not use it as a benchmark.
replies(4): >>44562869 #>>44562942 #>>44562969 #>>44565753 #
rolandog ◴[] No.44562869[source]
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.

replies(1): >>44563131 #
pstuart ◴[] No.44563131[source]
"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.
replies(3): >>44563983 #>>44570968 #>>44571111 #
zimpenfish ◴[] No.44563983[source]
Also

* Expand the Supreme Court

replies(2): >>44564735 #>>44567706 #
1. pstuart ◴[] No.44567706{3}[source]
That is a hack which would be last in line. First and foremost, there should be no "legal bribery" of any justice -- up the salaries and fluff up the goodies (housing, etc), but otherwise zero outside income, with a blind trust for all assets.

One very thorny issue is the fact that our system of government is built on respect for the law and the institutions, but the current regime has learned they can just do whatever they want with virtual impunity. They brought tanks, drones and nukes to a knife fight, and the other side is completely unarmed and trying to talk them out of the fight.

We are so fucked.