Can Sortition Help "Fix" Our Damaged Political System?

[woolfe9998]

g


You're taking some exaggerated worst case scenario and twisting it. Elitist fearmongering. Let's take such thinking to it's logical conclusion: Half the population are below average so juries should only be experts. In fact, half of voters are below average so lets have experts pick the politicians. And on and on... it's a dead end. I'm not appealing to populism, and advocating more democratization.

Based off what I've said, the 435 people would not be a bunch of morons. And we'd still have all those genius experts you think are in the Senate and Executive and Judicial.

No, sorry, I'm not buying your ridiculous analogy to being on a jury. Jurors are asked to sit and decide a narrow question of someone's guilt or innocence, liability or non-liability. After hearing evidence and being instructed by a judge, a cross section of people might do fine. Though ample research shows that juries actually do badly in unusually complex cases involving highly technical issues and lots of expert testimony.

Being on a jury where you provide a verdict in the form of a thumbs up or thumbs down is not the same as crafting legislation which will affect an entire nation.

 

[pauldun170]

Define "elites"
Define "normal" people

I would like to see a response to this request.
Cuz reasons

 

[Greenman]

I would love to hear how you think people with a 1-2 week civics course would be able to intelligently craft legislation.

My guess would be not much worse than legislation is crafted now. No one actually reads the bills they vote on.

 

[cwjerome]

I would like to see a response to this request.
Cuz reasons

I'm interested in what you two think they mean.

 

[cwjerome]

My guess would be not much worse than legislation is crafted now. No one actually reads the bills they vote on.

Right? Everyone is acting like these idiots are some paragons of expertise and intelligence. OK, you or somebody may not respect the idea of sortition... fine, it's a bit out there. But some of the rationale is spooky.

 

[brycejones]

I'm interested in what you two think they mean.

You used the terms, define what they mean to you so we have the proper context for your statements.

 

[cwjerome]

The institutional knowledge piece would be the hardest nut to crack, but I think it can be controlled for with a proper structure and processes. I think it would be so different, the institutional knowledge factor would be greatly reduced in terms of importance because the entire make-up is different. There are trade-offs all over the place, but I can live with some minor issues with this if it means cleaning up the partisan cesspool.

 

[cwjerome]

You used the terms, define what they mean to you so we have the proper context for your statements.

I think I've been spelling out a lot on here. Perhaps you should engage in a real discussion instead of always asking me to do something in one sentence posts.

 

[fskimospy]

The term is already only 2 years, you act like 1 year is earth-shattering. The only reason they stay forever in the house is because of a rigged partisan structure.

Because the average tenure of a congressman is not actually only two years because people get re-elected. If the selection here is random every term will be only one year. This will demolish the House's ability to legislate.

Here is how I see it. To many people go to Congress bright eyed and bushy tailed and within a few years they have been ground down by the corrupt party mechanism and lost all hope. It's a soul-crushing and broken system that rewards partisan obedience and puts party and special interests above the long term health of the people and country.

So your answer is to empower the special interests to run the place directly. What a terrible idea.

 

[fskimospy]

My guess would be not much worse than legislation is crafted now. No one actually reads the bills they vote on.

This is not true in any meaningful way. The legislators don't read the bills personally because that's a waste of their time but they have clearly communicated preferences to their staff and more importantly, their staff is accountable to them so if they give the legislators bad info about the bill, deceive them about the bill, etc. they will be fired. That's what staff is for!

The thing is if all the legislators are 1 year and done they won't ever have time to figure anything out or hold anyone accountable, and they won't even know what questions to ask. It would be a catastrophe.

 

[Pohemi]

As bad a job as we may do in electing representatives, the idea that you randomly choose people, including those who have dementia, mental illness, or are just plain stupid, is far, far worse.

It's amusing that he thinks random cross-sections of the general public would be capable of drafting legislation within a year.

I'm interested in what you two think they mean.

Keep dodging, clown.

I think I've been spelling out a lot on here. Perhaps you should engage in a real discussion instead of always asking me to do something in one sentence posts.

You haven't spelled out anything but a few terms like Sortition with dictionary definitions. The rest of your pontificating has been vague and generalized. You are anything but informed, and your slip is showing.

 

[dank69]

No, sorry, I'm not buying your ridiculous analogy to being on a jury. Jurors are asked to sit and decide a narrow question of someone's guilt or innocence, liability or non-liability. After hearing evidence and being instructed by a judge, a cross section of people might do fine. Though ample research shows that juries actually do badly in unusually complex cases involving highly technical issues and lots of expert testimony.

Being on a jury where you provide a verdict in the form of a thumbs up or thumbs down is not the same as crafting legislation which will affect an entire nation.

The fact that this even needs to be said reflects very poorly on the OP.

 

[brycejones]

I think I've been spelling out a lot on here. Perhaps you should engage in a real discussion instead of always asking me to do something in one sentence posts.

You aren’t saying much that’s the problem. If you want meaningful discussion then it’s important for you to define the terms you are using so that others have a shot at understanding the context. That you have consistently refused to do so in two threads that you started shows me that you are not really interested in having your ideas questioned or examined.

 

[Pohemi]

You aren’t saying much that’s the problem. If you want meaningful discussion then it’s important for you to define the terms you are using so that others have a shot at understanding the context. That you have consistently refused to do so in two threads that you started shows me that you are not really interested in having your ideas questioned or examined.

This right here. /thread & ignore the tool

 

[cwjerome]

Because the average tenure of a congressman is not actually only two years because people get re-elected. If the selection here is random every term will be only one year. This will demolish the House's ability to legislate.


So your answer is to empower the special interests to run the place directly. What a terrible idea.

No it will force the legislators to actually legislate instead of doing what they do 80% of the time right now... which is not legislating. You keep saying the special interests would have so much power, but like the entire concept, you're trying to place this square idea into a circle box. Things would be different. different access and processes and roles. I could even imagine some sort of accountability office that provides factual, non-partisan facts and info (similar to what voters get on issues) and similar to what current legislators receive from various sources. You need to think bigger instead of applying the current paradigm to a new one.

 

[cwjerome]

OK, this post has run it's course... the same hideous troll, tools, and hacks are doing their P&N thing. I was wondering how long they could contain themselves, lol. Cheers.

 

[fskimospy]

No it will force the legislators to actually legislate instead of doing what they do 80% of the time right now... which is not legislating. You keep saying the special interests would have so much power, but like the entire concept, you're trying to place this square idea into a circle box. Things would be different. different access and processes and roles. I could even imagine some sort of accountability office that provides factual, non-partisan facts and info (similar to what voters get on issues) and similar to what current legislators receive from various sources. You need to think bigger instead of applying the current paradigm to a new one.

‘Non-partisan facts’? What does that even mean? Who makes the determination as to what counts as partisan and what doesn’t? Who sets the agenda for what it researches? Effective research can take months or years, so what do we do in those cases? This is a hand waving fantasy.

I don’t need to think bigger, you need to explain how you’re accounting for massive problems in your plan that are glaringly obvious from the outset.

 

[fskimospy]

The institutional knowledge piece would be the hardest nut to crack, but I think it can be controlled for with a proper structure and processes. I think it would be so different, the institutional knowledge factor would be greatly reduced in terms of importance because the entire make-up is different. There are trade-offs all over the place, but I can live with some minor issues with this if it means cleaning up the partisan cesspool.

‘Knowing what the hell you are doing would be much less important because [furious hand waving]’

 

[Moonbeam]

The term is already only 2 years, you act like 1 year is earth-shattering. The only reason they stay forever in the house is because of a rigged partisan structure.

Here is how I see it. To many people go to Congress bright eyed and bushy tailed and within a few years they have been ground down by the corrupt party mechanism and lost all hope. It's a soul-crushing and broken system that rewards partisan obedience and puts party and special interests above the long term health of the people and country.

You and they seek perfection when the only barrier to perfection is the false self. Jesus showed the way. You don't have to be a Christian to see that. Subject the false self to crucifixion and discover the kingdom of heaven is within or at least try to have faith that if you could that would be the result.

 

[brycejones]

OK, this post has run it's course... the same hideous troll, tools, and hacks are doing their P&N thing. I was wondering how long they could contain themselves, lol. Cheers.

Lordy

 

[pmv]

The trouble is the OP is putting forward an idea that is usually suggested in an entirely tongue-in-cheek manner, perhaps while under the influence of alcohol in a pub-conversation, or for purely rhetorical purposes, but suggesting it as an allegedly serious plan.

How exactly would he propose to bring this system about?

It's a system that might work for, say, a social-club or a housing co-op that wants to form a committee to organize the annual Christmas party, or something. To get it instigated for the governance of an entire country would of course require a literal revolution.

And I'm not sure the idea is inspiring enough to persuade enough people to rise up and violently seize control of the state so as to implement it. It's just pure fantasy, and not remotely a realistic proposal.

 

[Aikouka]

Hahaha, that's a pretty perverted take on it. It's one element of breaking down the 2-party stranglehold. Ranked choice, term limits, banning gerrymandering, open primaries, reformed elections laws (that actually allow independents to run for office, etc)... a general change in values that moves away from partisan polarization. Each is a step in the right direction.

I think you left off one of the worst aspects of our political system: money. Essentially, the higher your political aspirations, the more expensive it becomes. Even running for a local office can come with a decent cost attached. As a result, you either have to rely on some extensive and thorough networking (see Georgia's last Senatorial race), money to support campaigning, or both. Once you introduce these large sums of money, you've effectively created a dependency on these donors whether they're direct, PAC-based, etc. For example, if a Senator gets contributions from AT&T, they are less likely to vote on measures to support municipal broadband. A great example of that is everyone's favorite Tennessean, Marsha Blackburn.

Now, I will say that I think corporations do need to be considered properly when working on legislation. For example, if the government were to heavily subsidize municipal broadband making it incredibly hard for corporations to compete, that would be an issue. The problem is that corporations are a large source of revenue for campaigns. There was an article on Ars the other day about communications companies spending $235 million in campaign contributions or lobbying in 2019 and 2020 combined. How can Joe Schmoe compete with that sort of cash flow to make sure elected officials like Marsha Blackburn take their needs into account?

 

[Pohemi]

The trouble is the OP is [an imbecile and getting more troll-like with every post]

ftfy

OK, this post has run it's course... the same hideous troll, tools, and hacks are doing their P&N thing. I was wondering how long they could contain themselves, lol. Cheers.

Translation: he's had enough trolling and has no desire for honest discussion.

Fuck off.

 

[MrSquished]

Sortition is dumb as several posters here have intelligently refuted.

Besides fixing the EC, tweaking the SC and the power of Senators - for elections we need ranked choice voting across the board, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM (including possible public funding of races), voting reform to make it just as easy for parties outside Dem and the Trump party to participate, etc...

 

[kage69]

My guess would be not much worse than legislation is crafted now. No one actually reads the bills they vote on.

'No one actually reading their bills' definitely applies to the Rs, it's the party of attaching their names to lobbyist/interest group written bills and handing them in relatively unaltered, providing the other side with copies (featuring indecipherable handwritten edits maybe) mere hours before the vote. The measure of "worse" seems difficult to take you seriously over when it's mainly one party who keeps trying to pass blatantly un-constitutional laws.

I can provide you examples of this. Can you provide me examples of the Dems doing similar to support your BothSides attempt?