Why bother with elections, the candidates always cater to the special interests who pay for their campaigns.
How about a better way: Conduct a national lottery for who gets into Congress.
Allow any qualified person with the appropriate age and residency requirements to be in the drawing.
It would probably represent the will of the American people better than Congress does today. For example, if 3% of people are Pacific Green Party, than 3% of the people in Congress would be Pacific Green Party. Minority views would have more of a voice in the legislative body.
When you consider on 39 percent of those eligible to vote actually did, the problem isn’t so much special interests “controlling” Congress as much as it is lack of interest by the electorate.
We need something/someone to galvanize the electorate in taking an active role.
Instead of a lottery, perhaps you would like a proportional representation scheme. It is hardly new; there are many countries that operate at least partially on this system. IIRC Japan is one of them. Voters simply vote for a party and then seats are awarded to the parties based on the percentage of the votes that they receive. I think a lottery is a disastrous idea, but if you want to take the chance of turning Congress over to a bunch of uneducated Jerry Springer casting call rejects, then by all means continue to advocate for a change in the system.
I also continue to be amused and bewildered by the attacks on the so called “special interest.” In the absence of these, “special interests” exactly whose interests would you have the politician represent, and how are those interests not special?
Hmmm…aren’t actually the jurors (jurees?) picked at random? And aren’t they invested with an extremely important power? And aren’t they somewhat considered to represent the people?
Also, some officials in Athens were picked at random rather than elected…
No. First, you have to be a registered voter. Second, you have to get past the viore dire. Third, you have to be able to serve. So no, it isn’t totally random. In any event while juries are an important part of the judicial system, they do not make laws. The judge instructs the jury on what the law is and the jury is tasked with applying the law to the facts presented in the case. If the jury screws it up, they are subject to reversal, in some cases, by the higher courts.
I don’t know, I have a feeling that if people were selected to hold political office by a random lottery, folks would make sure that little Johnny can read by kindergarten, since they’d be terrified that he could hold political office someday. To kind of blunt the damage that any lunatics could do, one could hold elections after a lottery winner’s first term, there’d be a simple yes/no vote, where if the population didn’t like the job the candidate was doing, he’d be booted out and a new lottery would be held. A further safeguard could be that all elected office positions are chosen in this manner, with a person having to serve two terms successfully at the local level, before they could move up to the state level, and then from there to the federal level.
Tuckerfan are you serious? I mean, it is interesting to talk about these things in the abstract, but do you honestly think that a random lottery is better than elections where people get to choose what they want? Would you like the lottery applied in any other position, say doctors or bankers?
Personally, I like the idea that people demonstrate some qualifications before they are given a job. I guess I am old fashioned that way.
For doctors, no. For bankers, well, given some of the past scandals that have hit the banking industry, I don’t know how some random yutz off the street could do much worse…
What qualifications does a person in the US need to have to hold elective office? They need to be over a certain age, fullfill whatever requirements needed to get on the ballot (usually gathering a set number of signatures), not have a felony conviction (though that may not be a requirement in all cases), and be able to convince a majority of those casting votes that you’re the best person for the job. That’s it. There’s no requirements for college degrees (good thing too, since several US presidents didn’t graduate college), no property requirements, no literacy tests, nothing.
While I’ll concede that there would be problems in the beginning with doing the random selection of government officials (hence the yes/no election that I proposed), I have enough faith and confidence in humans that once folks realized that the street punk hanging out on the corner could wind up being in office, they wouldn’t be inclined to cut him some slack when he misbehaved. At the very least, it has the virtue of not having been tried.
That is a bit of a stumbling block, in fact this is the most important qualification for office. Just like the Dr. having a license to practive medicine (and all that entails) actually being elected is what gives the politician authority.
Perhaps you were sleeping during the 2000 election debacle? Even after all this time, there’s still folks screaming that Bush has an illegitimate hold on power. If Americans agreed that the lottery system was the preferred method of selecting representation, then the fact that someone held office due to the lottery would (eventually) carry the same weight that holding elected office does today. Remember, at one time people thought that kings and other government officials ruled by divine right and the concept of the citizens voting someone into office was seen as a laughable concept, if not downright heresey.
The fact that there are people screaming that Bush is illegitimate does not make it so. I’ll buy the idea that people could come to see a lottery as being a legitimate way to select leaders. I don’t see it as being a better way, and in fact I see it as decidely inferior to our electoral process.
Remember, at one time people thought the earth was the center of the universe, and the concept of the earth orbiting the sun was seen as laughable, if not heresey.
Well, I can see how one might think its an inferior method, and I can’t offer any evidence that it would be better, since its not been done that I know of. It would make an interesting experiment to try out sometime.
Anyway, to back up Tucker, the question is not one of legitimacy. Obviously, if the majority of the folks decide to choose their representatives, those that are selected through lottery are legitimate.
The real question is whether it is a good idea or not, not whether it is legitimate. My personal opinion is that it is NOT a good idea, simply due to the fact that I know to many people who are pretty darn smart in their chosen field, but not really an expert in politics, foreign affairs or stuff like that.
Another problem is the lack of a reelection option. Let’s assume that the lottery takes place every two years (same as House elections). As much as people don’t seem to realize this, most Representatives/Senators, etc. really do go out of their way to address the concerns of their community and to craft laws that their constituents will support. Naturally, this doesn’t always result in good policy, but it does provide a nice check. Using the lottery process with no chance of reelection completely eliminates that check.
It would be an interesting experiment, though. Not sure how you could get peopel to go along with it.
An experiment I’ve been interested in for awhile. I’d say, fill the House that way, with a basic competency test to get through (literacy and basic math should be fine; I’d say must have high school diploma, but these days that’s apparently no indication of actually being able to read). And keep the Senate electing normally, as a check-and-balance versus the theoretical Jerry Springer Audience Effect.
But all told, I don’t think the current system is that broken. Even angrily contested elections simply don’t involve people being machine-gunned, for instance, which my cynical side suggests may be just about the best that you can expect out of a system designed by people.
I would add a third house of randomly selected people, drawn from a pool of registered voters, and keep the house and senate the same. A bill would have to pass all three houses to get through.
You present these as if they were mutually exclusive, when in fact, the one is the cause of the other. People are apathetic about the political process because they quite rightly perceive that it has almost no relation to their lives. Elections are decided on the basis of purely cosmetic policies or personality issues, while the fundamental public policy decisions are made by an unaccountable elite. Recall that the Democrats lost control over the Senate because of some inappropriate behavior at a funeral. If that doesn’t show you how trivial elections have become, nothing will.
A national lottery for elected office would, without doubt, produce state managers who do a better job of serving the public than do the corporate whores in power now. I have much more faith in what is called the “common man” than in the highly indoctrinated elite who serve their own class, while always waging a vicious class war. At the very least, this vicious class war, along with the constant real imperialist wars, would be abated.
Well, sure. But WHY are they decided on the basis of purely cosmetic policies or personality issues? Because voters are too lazy to actually look stuff up. The cause of this supposed disconnect is not the elected officials. They do their best with the info they have at hand, knowing that they have twitchy, ignorant constituents with no real knowledge of what is happening and easily swayed by emotional arguments.
Sorry, the blame for any problems with this governmental system lies squarely at the feet of voters, not at the feet of representatives.
Well, that’s nice. But it’s an insane theory. And I’m not sure quite where to begin. For one thing, your characterization of member of Congress is somewhat skewed. And inaccurate. So that’s a start. And I think that your faith in the “common man” (whoever that is) is misplaced. But I can’t prove that last one, but just going by the people I’ve known in my life, I wouldn’t put stewardship of anything in their hands that required knowledge of anything outside of their field of “expertise.”
