NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to propose the following constitutional amendment:

The President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives shall be chosen by random selection of their Social Security number and shall meet all other Constitutional requirements. The selected persons shall serve one term as Constitutionally stated. The selected persons shall never again serve in any elected or selected capacity and shall receive an annual salary and pension after serving their term of $250,000.

This can't be any worse than what we've got now. Would this have any chance of saving us from our continuing slide into decay?

No.

God, no.

This can't be any worse than what we've got now.

Yes, yes it can.

We have no president, vice-president, senate or house of representatives, so getting those is indeed worse than what we have now.

I would like to propose the following constitutional amendment:

The President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives shall be chosen by random selection of their Social Security number and shall meet all other Constitutional requirements. The selected persons shall serve one term as Constitutionally stated. The selected persons shall never again serve in any elected or selected capacity and shall receive an annual salary and pension after serving their term of $250,000.

This can't be any worse than what we've got now. Would this have any chance of saving us from our continuing slide into decay?

It definetley could be a lot worse than what we have now. There are a lot (well not that many, but at least a few) people worse qualified to be president than George Bush. Think of all the neo-Nazi's and holocaust deniers that could be President.

Think about if all of the NS Trolls got picked to be president... The MTAE presidency? No thank you.

But, if this was a joke and you don't really think its a good idea...

Good joke!

I would like to propose the following constitutional amendment:

The President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives shall be chosen by random selection of their Social Security number and shall meet all other Constitutional requirements. The selected persons shall serve one term as Constitutionally stated. The selected persons shall never again serve in any elected or selected capacity and shall receive an annual salary and pension after serving their term of $250,000.

This can't be any worse than what we've got now. Would this have any chance of saving us from our continuing slide into decay?

while at least some random selection is a very good idea, you do not want to mix it with a presidential system.

Which ones the button that done does sets France blowin up in tarnation? Who's on pork rind duty? I'm presidente! I want pork rinds! And get that Britney Spears over here to entertain me in that school girl outfit. Tell her, no babies in the white house. Let the Pentagon watch the little brat or somethin'.

We have no president, vice-president, senate or house of representatives, so getting those is indeed worse than what we have now. I, um, agree with Fass…

This can't be any worse than what we've got now. Would this have any chance of saving us from our continuing slide into decay?

:rolleyes:

"oH N03Z Ge0RG3 8U5H 1Z tH4 Wr05T3D pR3S1DeNt3 3V4r! Th3 U5 0F 4 15 d0Om3D!"

We have no president, vice-president, senate or house of representatives, so getting those is indeed worse than what we have now.

What if, instead of the Riksdag, you got a randomly selected group of people to make up an Alþingi, and instead of King Carl Gustaf you randomly select a swede to become Lord Protector of the Land, and instead of the swedish statsminister you randomly select a swede to become Wěiyuánhuì Zǒngshūjì instead?

Would that be worse?

(Note: I might have misspelled that last bit...)

:rolleyes:

"oH N03Z Ge0RG3 8U5H 1Z tH4 Wr05T3D pR3S1DeNt3 3V4r! Th3 U5 0F 4 15 d0Om3D!"
B4K4

Thank you, no. Not only for the reasons above, but what if said person doesn't want to serve? I sure as hell would never want to be president. Then we have the issue of ability, relibility, and a few other things.

Nope, while the choice as of late seems to be the lesser evil, at least it's a choice of lesser evils that want to be there and have proven SOME sort of ability to govern.

I've always thought that term limits were an idea that was doomed to fail. Just think about who needs to enact them. But this makes me think that there IS another alternative.

There might be a few details that need to be worked out, i.e. no felons, etc, but on the whole, I think everyone ought to have their turn in the barrel. This way, the Fed would run a lot like the military.

This can't be any worse than what we've got now.

We'll talk after Fred Phelps has had his four years.

Another point of contention: What if you got a President who was ideologically opposed to his VP? Like Noam Chomsky and Rush Limbaugh.

I would like to propose the following constitutional amendment:

The President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives shall be chosen by random selection of their Social Security number and shall meet all other Constitutional requirements. The selected persons shall serve one term as Constitutionally stated. The selected persons shall never again serve in any elected or selected capacity and shall receive an annual salary and pension after serving their term of $250,000.

This can't be any worse than what we've got now. Would this have any chance of saving us from our continuing slide into decay?

Oh hell no. This is the most stupidest idea I have ever heard.

Another point of contention: What if you got a President who was ideologically opposed to his VP? Like Noam Chomsky and Rush Limbaugh.

Duel at twenty paces.

Another point of contention: What if you got a President who was ideologically opposed to his VP? Like Noam Chomsky and Rush Limbaugh.
You get problems, just ask John Adams about his VP.

You get problems, just ask John Adams about his VP.

He said that although they often disagreed, the sex made it worthwhile.

Two words why you probably don't want to be doing that:

President Goofball. :D

He said that although they often disagreed, the sex made it worthwhile.

Hooray! :D

:rolleyes:

"oH N03Z Ge0RG3 8U5H 1Z tH4 Wr05T3D pR3S1DeNt3 3V4r! Th3 U5 0F 4 15 d0Om3D!"

quit spamming :rolleyes:

What if, instead of the Riksdag, you got a randomly selected group of people to make up an Alþingi,

That would require us to become an island in the north Atlantic.

and instead of King Carl Gustaf you randomly select a swede to become Lord Protector of the Land,

Been there, done that, but last time he was French.

and instead of the swedish statsminister you randomly select a swede to become Wěiyuánhuì Zǒngshūjì instead?

Would require us to become an enormous country in East-Asia, and to have the statsminister "selected", which he is not.

Would that be worse?

Most things apart from what we have would be worse. The Monarchy is the only thing we should part with, but the last thing we should do is replace it with a presidential republic as there is no need for such.

Two words why you probably don't want to be doing that:

President Goofball. :D
Oh I dunno... I think the Goofball Administration would be something I'd like to see...










Just as long as I am safely in Japan at the time to properly enjoy it. ;)

I would like to propose the following constitutional amendment:

The President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives shall be chosen by random selection of their Social Security number and shall meet all other Constitutional requirements. The selected persons shall serve one term as Constitutionally stated. The selected persons shall never again serve in any elected or selected capacity and shall receive an annual salary and pension after serving their term of $250,000.

This can't be any worse than what we've got now. Would this have any chance of saving us from our continuing slide into decay?

Think about this carefully. You could get me for president, or worse, one of my kids. or Ann Coulter or Howard Stern or somebody who just died. Hmm.

Oh hell no. This is the most stupidest idea I have ever heard.

Give yourself some more credit: you've had some winners.

Oh I dunno... I think the Goofball Administration would be something I'd like to see...

Just as long as I am safely in Japan at the time to properly enjoy it. ;)

Goofballery knows not borders or oceans.

Goofballery knows not borders or oceans.
True, but I'm thinking that even HE can't sling mud across the Pacific... I hope! :eek:

Another point of contention: What if you got a President who was ideologically opposed to his VP? Like Noam Chomsky and Rush Limbaugh.

then in the case of a tie in the senate, it wouldn't go the president's way

We'll talk after Fred Phelps has had his four years.

and it would be impossible to impeach fred phelps for why?

This is the most stupidest idea I have ever heard.

You're a liar.
*shakes head*

You're a liar.
*shakes head*

:rolleyes:

Just another reason why it's a bad idea: corruption.

I see you trying to cover that with the $250, 000 salary. It doesn't cover it.

I don't think we would get more than a few extremists. There are checks and balances between the legislative and executive. If the prez is a goofball, override the vetos and don't allocate him any funding. If the veep and prez don't get along, so what, the veep is redundant. A lifetime at $250k per year for doing nothing, well, I'd take it.

And as for not wanting to serve... Hooray, that's great since maybe they will stay home, take the money, and leave me the f**k alone...

Out of some 500 odd people, I think we'd get a reasonable cross section, who want nothing more than to be left alone. Which was pretty much what the Founding Fathers thought ought to be the case.

I don't think we would get more than a few extremists. There are checks and balances between the legislative and executive. If the prez is a goofball, override the vetos and don't allocate him any funding. If the veep and prez don't get along, so what, the veep is redundant. A lifetime at $250k per year for doing nothing, well, I'd take it.

And as for not wanting to serve... Hooray, that's great since maybe they will stay home, take the money, and leave me the f**k alone...

Out of some 500 odd people, I think we'd get a reasonable cross section, who want nothing more than to be left alone. Which was pretty much what the Founding Fathers thought ought to be the case.

You're ... serious ??

I find the idea interesting, but the assumption that you'd keep a system which was carefully constructed to balance several ideals, while tossing out the "representative democracy" strand, suggests you haven't really given your idea much thought.

If you're going to put it seriously, it would help to think it through first, or you'll just come off looking like a troll.

I don't think we would get more than a few extremists. There are checks and balances between the legislative and executive. If the prez is a goofball, override the vetos and don't allocate him any funding. If the veep and prez don't get along, so what, the veep is redundant. A lifetime at $250k per year for doing nothing, well, I'd take it.

And as for not wanting to serve... Hooray, that's great since maybe they will stay home, take the money, and leave me the f**k alone...

Out of some 500 odd people, I think we'd get a reasonable cross section, who want nothing more than to be left alone. Which was pretty much what the Founding Fathers thought ought to be the case.

You're ... serious ??

I find the idea interesting, but the assumption that you'd keep a system which was carefully constructed to balance several ideals, while tossing out the "representative democracy" strand, suggests you haven't really given your idea much thought.

If you're going to put it seriously, it would help to think it through first, or you'll just come off looking like a troll.

tossing out the "representative democracy" strand

random selection actually is a lot better at 'representative democracy' than the current system

random selection actually is a lot better at 'representative democracy' than the current system

I would love to see this backed up.

random selection actually is a lot better at 'representative democracy' than the current system

Well, that would depend on the sample size.

random selection actually is a lot better at 'representative democracy' than the current system

Sure, that's why Madison's Federalist 10 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm) always makes me giggle.

I would love to see this backed up.

If you take a thousand random people off the streets, you will get a far more representative sample of the US population than if you restrict the candidates to the kind of people with the money and influence to get elected (rich white men, mostly.)

Do you honestly doubt that?

Well, that would depend on the sample size.

oh, indeed. not so good of an idea for presidents and other such single-person positions of ungodly power, obviously.

So, without putting a lot of thought into it myself, I'm wondering what the best sort of governing body for this "randomly representative democracy" might be?

1. One parliament, selected at regular intervals.
2. One parliament, with members randomly sacked and replaced.
3. One parliament, with a new member say each week, first in first out.
4. Two parliaments constituted differently (eg short terms in one, long in the other.)
5. Two parliaments constituted alike, but selected on alternate dates (eg odd years for one, even for the other.)

I don't see much benefit to two houses which are selected the same way on the same date. Like checks and balances between Tweedledum and Tweedledee!

Some randomness in the selection process actually lets you dodge a lot of the problems that plague most electoral systems.

I would like to propose the following constitutional amendment:

The President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives shall be chosen by random selection of their Social Security number and shall meet all other Constitutional requirements. The selected persons shall serve one term as Constitutionally stated. The selected persons shall never again serve in any elected or selected capacity and shall receive an annual salary and pension after serving their term of $250,000.

This can't be any worse than what we've got now. Would this have any chance of saving us from our continuing slide into decay?

OH GOD NO!...It could be a hell of a lot worse....

Alright, screw this! Anarchy! I'm going to go "procure" a big screen plasma TV with TiVo, then write it off as tax-deductible.

I'd sooner do this, then agree to a system which could one day potentially land one of my druggie, ignorant, cheerleader-mentality classmates in a position of power...

...or worse, land ME in power.

I'd sooner do this, then agree to a system which could one day potentially land one of my druggie, ignorant, cheerleader-mentality classmates in a position of power...

have you seen the people in charge here?

bullshit I love this Idea. NO POLITICAL PARTIES! THINK OF IT! IT WOULD BE AMAZING. I THINK I WOULD ORGASM.:eek:

have you seen the people in charge here?

Okay, just think about this for a second...

MTAE president.
Jesussaves Vice-president.

*shiver*

Okay, just think about this for a second...

MTAE president.
Jesussaves Vice-president.

*shiver*

i point you to our actual congress...

i point you to our actual congress...

look, even Dan Quayle isnt as bad as MTAE

Okay, just think about this for a second...

MTAE president.
Jesussaves Vice-president.

*shiver*

I thought about it for a second.

Assume MTAE to be a US cit (well, who knows, but assume.) 1 in 200,000,000 (roughly, assume minors and felons aren't eligible.)
Assume Jesussaves to be a US cit. Same odds.

Odds of that ticket coming up in the first "Random Representation" draft: 1 in 4 X 10^16. Or if you like the longhand, 1 in 40,000,000,000,000,000. One in forty thousand British Billions.

If you're scared of that, you better start digging a hole 'cos the meteorites have got your number :p

actualy they should be randomly selected from among high school and jr college students and homeless people, no ssn's required. but without the term limits and their retirement income tied to national averages with built in inflation/deflation adjustments rather then any arbitrarily fixed amount.

this however still fails to address the biggest shortcomming of the existing (u.s., presumably we are talking about here) system. and that is for the attorney general to be appointed by CONGRESS rather then the executive, thus preventing, or at least hindering, the executive branche's complete control of any and all evidence that would otherwise be neccessary to obtain an empeachment against them!

but the random drafting of 'representitives' WOULD be superior to having them preselected by the most powerful of vested interests as they defacto and of neccessity are now. the argument against that is of course potential for incompitence. the obvious argument against that argument is the level of incompetance we have now.

=^^=
.../\...

Oh I dunno... I think the Goofball Administration would be something I'd like to see...










Just as long as I am safely in Japan at the time to properly enjoy it. ;)

No country is safe! :mad:

:D

True, but I'm thinking that even HE can't sling mud across the Pacific... I hope! :eek:

You challenge President Goofball?!?

*phones NORAD* Deploy the bombers!

...

No, not those! The other bombers!

Two words why you most definately should be doing that:

President Goofball. :D

Fixed.

You mean.. anyone gets to be president?

No. No no no no. No. No. No no no, no.

Fixed.

They'll never get the stains out of the carpet in the Oval Office. :)

They'll never get the stains out of the carpet in the Oval Office. :)

How can you stain a floor when it's made out of mud?

How can you stain a floor when it's made out of mud?

With carpet.

Well, that would depend on the sample size.

Um the OP already stated that it be drawn from a pool of all eligible people... I have a feeling that the pool would be larger then what an averagly representable survey population would be (which is between 1-2 thousand)

I kind of mused about this over dinner. Kind of.
I did no research whatsoever, nor did I seriously discuss it with any real world person or by any private channel. So the following is complete fantasy, and probably quite silly.

Here's my plan:

From among what are now eligible voters (plus convicted felons not currently serving time), any citizen may register to be a candidate. The roll of registered candidates should be secret, but registration can be revealed at the individual's discretion.

To remain on the candidate roll, the citizen must pay a fee. This would be initially set at a low level, but ultimately set at whatever price is required to pay the salary of all members of the parliament (say $1M p/a), given the variable size of the roll. For a 400 member parliament and 100,000,000 registered candidates, this would come to $2 per year, but would obviously be higher in a nation with fewer citizens.
THIS IS ESSENTIAL, since otherwise citizens who had no patriotic interest in serving in the parliament would have a financial incentive to enter the lottery. It might make sense to take a cut, providing a financial disincentive to register while keeping the lottery winners comfortable.
I'm not saying the $1M p/a will immunize lottery winners to corruption. I'll get to that.

I prefer a single parliament with total executive power, to declare war, set tax rates and appoint judges and senior civil servants (public servants.) The only limitation on their power would be to alter the constitution, which a parliament could propose to change, the change only being enacted after all sitting members have been dismissed and replaced (one rotation of the parliament.) Such a proposal could be repealed, resetting the waiting period, by a majority vote of the parliament.

I propose that new members be drafted to the parliament eight at a time, once every two months, taking the place of the eight most senior sitting members. A complete rotation of the parliament should be five years, giving a total membership of 240. Members retiring before the expiry of their term would be replaced immediately from the candidate roll.
There might be provision for the extension of a member's term, by majority vote. We don't want a rule which forces a widely-respected member to retire against the wishes of the parliament, but nor do we want a cabal of members who vote to retain each other, so restrict this to say, four members at any time, and set some absolute limit to the years they can serve.

Now to the prevention of corruption measures -- they are strict. We cannot prevent lobbying, since the parliament needs information to govern, and it is hard to imagine any external mechanism to decide what is relevant information to governance, and what is propaganda or corrupt inducements to vote in a particular way.
We want the decisions of the parliament to be enforced, so the parliament must have some outward communication, and we want the public to be completely free to partition the parliament. The parliament will also have access to information which the public should not -- military and commercial secrets, surveillance and frank advice. If there is too much opportunity for this information to leak back into society, the parliament will not get the whole story and this will limit it's ability to make decisions in the best interests of the nation.
My proposed solution to this is drastic: the permanent sequestration of selected candidates once they accept office.

The randomly selected candidates (members) are permitted private communications between themselves, but not with any outside party. Any outside party may petition the parliament as a whole (for instance a union may threaten to strike, a citizen may disclose information even if such disclosure would be illegal between citizens outside, an intelligence agency may deliver a classified report, and in fact any citizen may spam the parliament to their heart's content.) However, any such communication must be made available to all members. The resulting deluge of information and spam landing on each member's desk each day would of course be completely beyond their individual ability to peruse, but how they deal with that is up to them. They may employ staff (within the same strict parliamentary quarantine as themselves, from their own wage or any external source of funding) but more likely they will concentrate on a digest of this information which has been selected by an outside agency (for instance a political party of their choice.) The important thing is that all information available to other members is also made available to them, permitting them to detect attempts at corrupt inducement directed to other members.
The model diverges further from the perception of current parliaments (perhaps not from the facts) as regards the communications leaving the parliament. It is not a forum of free speech: the parliament issues only such communications as it approves by a majority (minority opinions have no right to be heard, hence the process of reaching decisions may be entirely hidden from the public.) It may issue private statements or in fact orders to any outside entity, again by a majority vote of its members. Towards the rest of society it behaves as a dictatorship, completely unaccountable, while within the parliament the only rule is 'the majority decides.'

Apon the expiry of their term, members cannot be released from sequestration. The simple application of an "official secrets" act might seem to make this possible, but implies an external definition of such secrets and a right of a court (eg Supreme Court) to retrospectively examine their actions and knowledge when in the parliament, and this would detract from the absolute power we are trying to embody in that parliament. Furthermore, there is a use for these ex-members which I will get to in a moment. Defining a "security cabinet" within the parliament and sequestering only those members after term expiry would be delegation of responsibility, and while it is obviously within the power of the parliament to do this, a rule which gives an incentive to do so is contrary to the principle we are trying to allow, of absolute participatory democracy within the parliament.
So, apon expiry of their term, retirement or impeachment, all members are kept in exile from outside society, along with any sequestered staff or personal consorts. The conditions of this exile are decided by the parliament, which may in fact choose to execute them instead. However, since these ex-members are the only people in the world with which the current members may freely and secretly confer (other than whatever staff they have persuaded to accept sequestration, and other current members) they would be a valuable resource, a living history of the parliament. It would not be surprising if current members chose to share all their recieved communications with these 'elder statespeople,' making those elders members in every sense but voting rights.

In light of these onerous restrictions on the civil rights of candidates once selected, it would not be surprising if the candidate pool was a lot smaller than the population of registered voters under any of our current systems. That might be a good thing -- I would expect such a government (even a government with great power and completely unaccountable), a government of those willing to sacrifice their own participation in the nation for power, to be better and more patriotic than a government of the priveleged and powerful indirectly representing all citizens who can be bothered to vote once every few years.

OK, it's fairly insane. I didn't sleep much last night :cool: