NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you vote for a non-voting system?

The problem:

Firstly, not everybody can get elected. If you are poor then forget it. Odds are very low that you once will get elected. You need enormous amounts of money.

Secondly, we don’t know anything about the quality of the elected person. They al say: “I’m not evil, I’m good and I’ll do what’s best for you”

We can’t even assess politicians that are in charge. We just watch the news, read some newspaper. But that are all high level views. We do not know how they are really performing.

Some source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Thirdly, every country already elected weak politicians. So, there’s no guaranty that the majority knows it best.

Fourthly, there is a lot of incest involved. You should count how many children of former politicians are politician by themselves… Or wives like Hilary.
Nobody is guarantying they have the talent of their parents (or partner). Statistically odd are low it is the case. They only ride on the wave of fame of their parents. And, we, idiots and conservative beings, we choose for what we already know, for things that are familiar.


The Solution:

We outlaw elections. They are just not working. We still elect the wrong people.
Also they are costing tons of money. Money that could be used to teas terrorists, education, a new spaceship, a tunnel under the Atlantic Ocean or whatever you like.

We still need leaders, politicians, so let them be chosen at random. Just like the juries in courtroom.

You need to fulfil a few basic requirements:

• Between 21-year and 65-year old.
• Having no criminal record
• Passed with success High School
• In good mental and physical shape.

I’m pretty sure that it would work as good as the current system and maybe even better.
In fact it would enhance democracy.

So because the people being selected are no good, we go for a system where the people are no good but are no longer selected?

You can have the most pure democracy in political terms, but unless the franchise can be extended to the economic realm it will never be universal and the franchise will remain restricted. This could be through campaign advertising money and those restrictions, but the most significant economic restriction is time, if you have a job and must work all the time then your time to participate in democratic politics will be limited, and thus your say limited. Therefore the franchise will be restricted to the rich and their even richer backers, it's an ancient tactics used by the rich to maintain control when the masses demand control. Systems of public compensation for participation seem like a good solution to this.

This is one of the more ridiculous ideas to grace the internet.

But cheaper.
To improve this system I suggest the "presidential lottery" is held right after a new president is seated. That way you have a few years (say 4) to give them relevant training and education.

I'd rather be able to sack those in charge than save a bob or two.

So because the people being selected are no good, we go for a system where the people are no good but are no longer selected?

But cheaper.
To improve this system I suggest the "presidential lottery" is held right after a new president is seated. That way you have a few years (say 4) to give them relevant training and education.

So: Bob winning the lottery in 2008 would mean he becomes president in 2012.

Yes, I agree. The random chosen president (or whatever politician) will receive a salary.

Present times, in lots of countries you can leave your job for 6 months or even a year. You are not anymore on the payroll of your company but you can return and pick up your old job.

So, the common people could join.

I would also restrict the time that such a random chosen person is in charge. A year or six months would be enough.


You can have the most pure democracy in political terms, but unless the franchise can be extended to the economic realm it will never be universal and the franchise will remain restricted. This could be through campaign advertising money and those restrictions, but the most significant economic restriction is time, if you have a job and must work all the time then your time to participate in democratic politics will be limited, and thus your say limited. Therefore the franchise will be restricted to the rich and their even richer backers, it's an ancient tactics used by the rich to maintain control when the masses demand control. Systems of public compensation for participation seem like a good solution to this.

I'd rather be able to sack those in charge than save a bob or two.

No reason why that would not be possible.

This is one of the more ridiculous ideas to grace the internet.

Well I believe they have such a system in Canada but I don't know the details anymore. I believed it is installed for the local governments.

I don't think Canada is doing it that bad...

Fourthly, there is a lot of incest involved. You should count how many children of former politicians are politician by themselves… Or wives like Hilary.
Nobody is guarantying they have the talent of their parents (or partner). Statistically odd are low it is the case. They only ride on the wave of fame of their parents. And, we, idiots and conservative beings, we choose for what we already know, for things that are familiar.

I'm not aware of there being much incest among politicians, at least not in developed countries anyway. That kind of thing would tend to make the news.
There's plenty of nepotism, but not incest.

Also, this only seems to happen in the US. It doesn't seem to be much of a problem in Western Europe. So the US democratic system needs altering, not abolishing altogether.


We still need leaders, politicians, so let them be chosen at random. Just like the juries in courtroom.

Juries are capable of some pretty stupid decisions as well though. All this would achieve is putting the power into the hands of the unelected advisers and administrators who advise the jury.

There is a lot of Nepotism in Belgium as well.

Over here, countless children of former politicians are in the parliament or even in charge of the government.


I'm not aware of there being much incest among politicians, at least not in developed countries anyway. That kind of thing would tend to make the news.
There's plenty of nepotism, but not incest.

Also, this only seems to happen in the US. It doesn't seem to be much of a problem in Western Europe. So the US democratic system needs alerting, not abolishing altogether.




Juries are capable of some pretty stupid decisions as well though. All this would achieve is putting the power into the hands of the unelected advisers and administrators who advise the jury.

How would you define 'random' and how would you ensure the selecting process continued to be impartial?

Well I believe they have such a system in Canada but I don't know the details anymore. I believed it is installed for the local governments.

I don't think Canada is doing it that bad...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#Provinces_and_territories
All provinces have unicameral, elected legislatures headed by a Premier selected in the same way as the Prime Minister of Canada.
I'm not aware of there being much incest among politicians, at least not in developed countries anyway. That kind of thing would tend to make the news.
There's plenty of nepotism, but not incest.
George Jr. and George Sr.
*shudder*

Also, this only seems to happen in the US. It doesn't seem to be much of a problem in Western Europe. So the US democratic system needs altering, not abolishing altogether.
Exactly. Imagine if this kind of tihnking were applied to medicine. Doctors sometimes make mistakes. So instead of having them decide how a patient should be treated, they just pull a treatment out of a hat. Go to hospital with a broken bone and end up getting a blood transfusion. Go in with cancer and get a course of mild antibiotics.



Juries are capable of some pretty stupid decisions as well though. All this would achieve is putting the power into the hands of the unelected advisers and administrators who advise the jury.

Indeed.

There is a lot of Nepotism in Belgium as well.

Over here, countless children of former politicians are in the parliament or even in charge of the government.

Were they appointed by their parents?

Juries are capable of some pretty stupid decisions as well though. All this would achieve is putting the power into the hands of the unelected advisers and administrators who advise the jury.


So are professional judges.

A study of some Belgian university showed no overall difference in the verdicts between elected juries or professional judges.

Do you really think politicians are a kind of super humans?

Most people will do it rather good. Sure from time to time you will get a bad president, so? And present times?

How would you define 'random' and how would you ensure the selecting process continued to be impartial?

Lotteries. With the added advantage that people can decide to participate or not for themselves.

If it should be free or require a token price to be paid for a ticket is something worth pondering.

Were they appointed by their parents?

Quite a lot of monarchies on this planet.. including Belgium ;)

How would you define 'random' and how would you ensure the selecting process continued to be impartial?

Create a list with all people that fulfil some basic requirements.

You don't want a child, a former murderer or a schizo as president.

Those lists are created rather easily.

We have computers you know. In developed countries everybody is registered in some system.

In Belgium we could use the lists of the National Security Numbers.

The random picking could be generated by a peace of software (open source of course :p)

Yes I would, perhaps it could work, I'm not sure but it's worth a try. It's just like the council of 500 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Council_of_500) in Athenian democracy, it's members where selected by an annual random lottery among all men over 30 who had not been selected twice before. It was considered more democratic and representative of the population then elections because anyone who is qualified can win a lottery. Only those who want the power, are influential enough to become well known and are charismatic enough to become popular win elections.

edit: But I would never live in a country with a presidential lottery, I'd rather move. It must be a parliament lottery where enough people are selected to the parliament that it will always end up having some moderate people who can pull the breaks when a few extremists gets selected and wants crazy changes.

So are professional judges.

A study of some Belgian university showed no overall difference in the verdicts between elected juries or professional judges.
Source?

Most people will do it rather good.
And what is your reasoning behind this?
Sure from time to time you will get a bad president, so? And present times?

A bad president, especially one who doesn't care about continuing a career in the public eye, can do a lot more harm than a bad jury. Say the current president is a laizzez faire capitalist, and enacts laws to reflect that. Then the next president is a Marxist, and enacts laws to reflect that. And the next president decides that money is the root of all evil, and enacts laws to reflect that. Congratulations, your wonder country no longer has an economy.

Were they appointed by their parents?

No. But a Bruno Tobback would have a hard time to get elected if his father was not dominating the Belgian Political world the last 20-25 years.

Tobback works like a brand now.

In my opinion the father was rather a good politician (however, I never gave him my vote, I’m not a socialist), but Bruno really s*cks.

The only reason why he is elected is cause his father. People are used to the name, they 'know' the father, so the son will be equal good as well.

I don't think Bush jr. would be elected (well, he WAS not elected, but that's off topic and old news) the first time if his father wasn't in charge before...

Why bother with juries - why not let everyone vote on any issue. We are not short on the technology that would enable everyone to be involved in making any decision they were interested in. You just have a unique number like a National Insurance number and you use that to vote. Of course most people are morons...

Quite a lot of monarchies on this planet.. including Belgium ;)
The King of Belgium does not run the country. His children are senators by right, and as such aren't appointed. I was asking if the politicians mentioned were appointed by their parents.
Only those who want the power, are influential enough to become well known and are charismatic enough to become popular win elections.

So, only the people who want to and who the people want to. And this is meant to be a bad thing?

No.

Then it's not nepotism.

I could add that our king has no real power. It's more or less ceremonial.

His children are indeed co-opted in the senate but have no voting power.

So their power is rather weak.

Sure, our prime minister will listen more to the king than to...me. *snif*

To make things clear: In Belgium, elected politicians run the show, not the king.



The King of Belgium does not run the country. His children are senators by right, and as such aren't appointed. I was asking if the politicians mentioned were appointed by their parents.


So, only the people who want to and who the people want to. And this is meant to be a bad thing?

It could work for long term stuff.

But think about this one:

Bin Laden blew up The Golden Gate Bridge in queer city.

We need a reaction NOW...

In your system, some smart people have to create and weight the poll.
Then we have to vote, which will take some time.
Then the processing of the votes...

If we have to wait for this, Bin Laden is already back in Afghanistan, hiding in some cave... We don't want this, no?




Why bother with juries - why not let everyone vote on any issue. We are not short on the technology that would enable everyone to be involved in making any decision they were interested in. You just have a unique number like a National Insurance number and you use that to vote. Of course most people are morons...

It could work for long term stuff.

But think about this one:

Bin Laden blew up The Golden Gate Bridge in queer city.

We need a reaction NOW...

In your system, some smart people have to create and weight the poll.
Then we have to vote, which will take some time.
Then the processing of the votes...

If we have to wait for this, Bin Laden is already back in Afghanistan, hiding in some cave... We don't want this, no?

And what would happen in your system? Maybe, if you're lucky, there's a good president and he closes the airports or whatever and catches the perpetrators. Or maybe there's a bad president and he declares war on Afghanistan before anyone really knows what's going on.

For it to work at all, you would need more of an oligarchy of randomly selected people, a president/prime minister would place too much power in the hands of one random. And this is still ignoring the fact a lot of people have little or no understanding of governing and many political and economic issues.

For it to work at all, you would need more of an oligarchy of randomly selected people, a president/prime minister would place too much power in the hands of one random. And this is still ignoring the fact a lot of people have little or no understanding of governing and many political and economic issues.

Which is why you should invest several years of education in the new president. Not a bad idea to do that for elected officials either for that matter.

It could work for long term stuff.

But think about this one:

Bin Laden blew up The Golden Gate Bridge in queer city.

We need a reaction NOW...

In your system, some smart people have to create and weight the poll.
Then we have to vote, which will take some time.
Then the processing of the votes...

If we have to wait for this, Bin Laden is already back in Afghanistan, hiding in some cave... We don't want this, no?

Why do think it would take more time? All that is required is a way to generate and prioritise the decisions that need to be made. Hell that has to be quicker than having some fuckwit of a President sitting round reading stories about goats.

And what would happen in your system? Maybe, if you're lucky, there's a good president and he closes the airports or whatever and catches the perpetrators. Or maybe there's a bad president and he declares war on Afghanistan before anyone really knows what's going on.

And what's your guaranty that your elected president will do what is needed?

In both systems there are still experts and advisers.

Or do you really believe a Bush or Clinton knows all about everything? :)

Why do think it would take more time? All that is required is a way to generate and prioritise the decisions that need to be made. Hell that has to be quicker than having some fuckwit of a President sitting round reading stories about goats.

I explained.

I guess I have to kill someone -Sun Tzu style- before you will listen.

But ok, I'll do it again, with some more detail:

1) Before you give some solutions to the people, you have to weed out the ridiculous ones. If people have too many selections they will chose none.

This is taking time.

2) Now you have your set with proposals. But now you have to shape them with the right words. All proposals should have a neutral tone. No one should feel he is directed in some direction.

This is taking time.

3) Finally, you go online. At www.planetdemocracy.gov you as a citizen give your vote.

Problem is, nobody is able to vote at the same moment. To make sure that enough people can give your vote, you will have to build a delay. Just like real elections.

This is taking time.

4) Ok, now we have the votes. Information from diverse servers is gathered, analysed and presented to the public.

This one is also taking time.

When a hurricane hit a city, you need a reaction in hours, not in days...

I explained.

I guess I have to kill someone -Sun Tzu style- before you will listen.

But ok, I'll do it again, with some more detail:

1) Before you give some solutions to the people, you have to weed out the ridiculous ones. If people have too many selections they will chose none.

This is taking time.

2) Now you have your set with proposals. But now you have to shape them with the right words. All proposals should have a neutral tone. No one should feel he is directed in some direction.

This is taking time.

3) Finally, you go online. At www.planetdemocracy.gov you as a citizen give your vote.

Problem is, nobody is able to vote at the same moment. To make sure that enough people can give your vote, you will have to build a delay. Just like real elections.

This is taking time.

4) Ok, now we have the votes. Information from diverse servers is gathered, analysed and presented to the public.

This one is also taking time.

When a hurricane hit a city, you need a reaction in hours, not in days...

Oh yes and Bush reacted really quickly when a hurricane hit as well...you really aren't selling your point very well.

The Citizens' Assembly in the Canadian province British Colombia is working a bit like this....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#Provinces_and_territories
All provinces have unicameral, elected legislatures headed by a Premier selected in the same way as the Prime Minister of Canada.

George Jr. and George Sr.
*shudder*


Exactly. Imagine if this kind of tihnking were applied to medicine. Doctors sometimes make mistakes. So instead of having them decide how a patient should be treated, they just pull a treatment out of a hat. Go to hospital with a broken bone and end up getting a blood transfusion. Go in with cancer and get a course of mild antibiotics.





Indeed.

I think you're vastly overestimating the intelligence of 99.9% of the population.

Money that could be used to teas terrorists

... what?

Huh... jurors aren't chosen at random, they mutually picked by botht he prosecution and defence because they thing the juror isn't prejudiced against their client, and more importantly that the juror is simple minded and easily influenced by emotive arguments.

can you define what healthy means?

Huh... jurors aren't chosen at random, they mutually picked by botht he prosecution and defence because they thing the juror isn't prejudiced against their client, and more importantly that the juror is simple minded and easily influenced by emotive arguments.

Do you really live in London because in the UK they are picked at random? Watch a lot of US dramas?

And what's your guaranty that your elected president will do what is needed?
It is in his or her own best interest to do so if they ever want to serve in public office again. Other than that, there is no guarantee. Your system would not even have that.

In both systems there are still experts and advisers.

Or do you really believe a Bush or Clinton knows all about everything? :)
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Just because I think your system is a terrible idea doesn't mean I like Bush or Clinton, stop trying to imply that I do.
Huh... jurors aren't chosen at random, they mutually picked by botht he prosecution and defence because they thing the juror isn't prejudiced against their client, and more importantly that the juror is simple minded and easily influenced by emotive arguments.

I thought that was the case too, but I wasn't sure since I only read it in a novel.

Do you really live in London because in the UK they are picked at random? Watch a lot of US dramas?

Selected jurors are generally subjected to a system of examination whereby both the prosecution (or plaintiff, in a civil case) and defense can object to a juror. In common law countries, this is known as voir dire. The method and scope of the possible rejections varies between countries:

In England these objections would have to be very well based, such as the defendant knowing a potential juror, to be allowed.
Some jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and the United States, give both the defense and prosecution a specific number of unconditional peremptory challenges. No justifications have to be brought to exclude a specific juror. Generally, defense attorneys exclude jurors who have professions or backgrounds similar to that of the victim and who could thus feel an emotional link to them, while prosecuting attorneys exclude jurors who might show affinity to the defendant. However, in the United States, if the prosecution excludes a minority -group member and the defense challenges, under Batson rules the prosecution must provide a race-neutral reason for the exclusion (later extended by court rulings to gender-neutral reasons as well).
Some systems allow argument over whether a juror's particular background or beliefs make them biased and therefore unsuitable for service on the jury. In the United States, and probably other nations, it is known that some citizens deliberately exploit this to get out of jury duty (for example, by mentioning knowledge of legal concepts).

In a civil case, the judge will typically ask prospective jurors whether there is any reason they might not be impartial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection

I've said for a long time that serving in public office should be a lot like participating in the jury system. We should all do our duty and serve a sentence in public office.

I don't see many disadvantages. Sure I'm not blind.

But if I look to the current system...

In US till now, not one black guy was elected as president, not one woman either...

Are white old men superior to women and black people? I don't think so.

In the current system, corruption is always around the corner.

In US voting is not mandatory, so not all people are involved.
In my country it is mandatory and hell no, it's not better.

Many people vote for a specific party because their parents did (family tradition).

Also you would be surprised how many young people (including the ones with a college or university degree) do not know anything about politics.

Some girlfriend (studying accountancy at univ) can't say even one basic element about the liberals...

She said to me, "I vote for guy X because he looks nice!"

Almost all people that get elected are a member of a party. It's rare that an independent can crasp power.

Some people said here: "yes, but migrate this system to doctors or pilots..."

Well for being a doctor you need very specific skills and knowledge. For being a politician you don't, virtue and wisdom will do the trick.

Some people can be a good politician at 18, others will never be (inclusing 'professional' ones)

My idea is not new and it surely worked in the past:

* The Athenians
* Several Italian City republics (Venice, Florence an others)

And they all became very powerful and for a long era. So there's evidence that it could work.

I know that most of you don't like this system, because you don't know it, it's 'new'. And most people are conservative by nature.

No, he didn't. But he could react fast. With (online) voting you'll be always too late.

And cause he was too late thus he made a bad decision (and according my opinion it was not his first fault), that's again evidence that 'professional' politicians do not perform better than 'common' people.

And the politicians here in Belgium are not better, believe me.

Look, what's common people anyway?

I'm common people, but I'm more graduated than your president.
Odds are high that I know much better about what’s living in the ‘common’ community than he does.

And I’m not an exception.


Oh yes and Bush reacted really quickly when a hurricane hit as well...you really aren't selling your point very well.

It is in his or her own best interest to do so if they ever want to serve in public office again. Other than that, there is no guarantee. Your system would not even have that.

Politicians made decisions to get re-elected. They don't do things that are good for a community on the long term.

Some do, but it's rare. And it isn't that easy as well for them.

In the Sortition system, we could iterate fast. Every 6 or 12 months a new prez. Also why giving power to one single person? Why not 2 or 3?


Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Just because I think your system is a terrible idea doesn't mean I like Bush or Clinton, stop trying to imply that I do.


I didn't. From what I understood (and excuse me for my poor English), you are suggesting that elected politicians are having a better quality as random selected ones.

And I disagree. That's all.