Nicker on 25/1/2018 at 13:17
I'd rather try working out the kinks of a new system that is resistant to corruption and taps into collective wisdom than wait for the aristocracy to agree to stop acting like privileged parasites.
Pyrian on 25/1/2018 at 16:24
There's no guarantee that new system will actually be resistant to corruption or tap into collective wisdom in any meaningful way; it could easily devolve in an immediate autocracy through any number of vulnerabilities. Better to try it on a small scale first. People forget how good we have it, and how fragile this prosperity really is.
catbarf on 25/1/2018 at 16:50
I wonder if a jury-like system of government rather than direct conscription into our current model could work. One of the problems with direct democracy is that most people don't understand the complexities of issues, and in a governmental context having Congressmen who have no experience in politics or law could be problematic. In our legal system, we address that issue by having a jury hear advocacy from both sides, and give them the time to review for themselves. While it occasionally produces inexplicable results, it seems to work well enough.
Could that work for government? Let elected representatives draft legislation, present it to a jury composed of ordinary citizens called to serve, let them hear advocates from both sides, and then only the jury votes? It avoids the problem of expecting ordinary people to understand and draft extensive legislation on complex topics, while still holding the government accountable to the people. I seem to have the vague recollection that this was roughly how one of the Greek city-states operated, but I can't remember.
SubJeff on 25/1/2018 at 18:45
I just got unbanned from The Donald at Reddit. It must have been a 1.5 year ban.
I can now see the immense trove of utter nonsense.
It really is like Idiocracy.
heywood on 25/1/2018 at 19:33
Direct democracy already works pretty well here for some things, such as initiative, referendum, and recall at the state level. Also, many municipalities use direct voting to decide on things like bond issues. The movement to introduce some of these direct democracy ideas started way back in the progressive era, but unfortunately the movement died before it got to all states and the federal government. Mike Gravel resurrected the idea of a national referendum when he ran for President in 2008, but it hasn't gone anywhere. I wish it would.
The Canadian Citizen Senate proposal sounded interesting at first, but the more I read the more I think it's a bad idea.
You'd be limiting who can be a sitting member of the Senate Red Chamber to a very small group of ~900 people (0.0025% of the population) who were selected at random. You're lucky if you draw even one person with a suitable education and background to be a legislator. It's hard to believe you're going to get better legislators than are currently appointed, or better legislators than you would get by popular election.
Second, the proposal still requires a process for selecting the members to "promote" to the Red Chamber, i.e. elections. There would still be a popularity contest, along with wheeling & dealing between the parties in the assembly to decide who gets to be a sitting Senator. The difference is that the proposal would limit who gets to participate in the election process to ~900 people instead of the wider population. That means if you're an outside party looking to influence who sits in the Red Chamber, you only need to target 900 people instead of millions. It could be more easy to influence and less transparent than popular elections.
Also, you're picking people at random and asking them to carve out time to be a public servant. Being selected for jury service is usually a brief commitment and you can skip work for it, yet a lot of people still complain about the disruption and try to get out of it. Now imagine asking people to commit themselves to be a citizen Senator for a term of what, 2 years? This would HAVE to be voluntary. It would probably also have to be compensated, otherwise you're going to have some of the members asking themselves "what can I get out of this?"
Even if you can avoid corruption, expecting the members of the citizen assembly to stay on top of what the Red Chamber is doing is probably asking too much. They may not be versed in law, they may not be interested in political sausage making, and might not have the time. When called on to vote, I imagine most of them are just going to vote their party line.
That would be my biggest fear: instead of getting a group of people who could stay above politics, you'll get an assembly of 900 people who vote with their party, with the number of people representing each party determined by random chance. And this assembly has veto power over legislation.
nickie on 25/1/2018 at 20:10
Just recording for posterity: (
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/01/25/after-a-missile-scare-and-insult-war-with-north-korea-its-time-to-check-the-doomsday-clock/?utm_term=.81ce4e83d322) "The Doomsday Clock just moved: It’s now 2 minutes to ‘midnight,’ the symbolic hour of the apocalypse"
Quote:
“Whenever the clock is set, we answer two basic questions,” Rachel Bronson, president of the Bulletin, said in an interview last fall. “Is the world safer, or at greater risk than it was a year ago? And is it safer or at greater risk than it was ever in the clock’s history?”
Quote:
The group's reasoning has traditionally focused on the availability of nuclear weapons and a willingness among the world's great powers to use them. But in recent years, the scientists have also considered the threat posed by climate change, which they said in 2007 is “nearly as dire” as the dangers of nuclear weapons.
Quote:
As of today,” Bulletin president Rachel Bronson told reporters, “it is two minutes to midnight” — as close as the world has ever been to the hour of apocalypse.
In moving the clock forward, the group cited “the failure of President Trump and other world leaders to deal with looming threats of nuclear war and climate change
The article touches on a few things that I remember and somehow explains to me why I have felt dread during the last year. It's personal so not evidence of anything.
Nicker on 26/1/2018 at 01:58
Quote Posted by Pyrian
There's no guarantee that new system will actually be resistant to corruption or tap into collective wisdom in any meaningful way; it could easily devolve in an immediate autocracy through any number of vulnerabilities. Better to try it on a small scale first. People forget how good we have it, and how fragile this prosperity really is.
The model proposed is resistant to corruption because:
- Term limits.
- A large sample size.
- You don't need to be rich or to have rich friends to get in.
- It's random.
Nicker on 26/1/2018 at 02:48
Quote Posted by heywood
You'd be limiting who can be a sitting member of the Senate Red Chamber to a very small group of ~900 people (0.0025% of the population) who were selected at random. You're lucky if you draw even one person with a suitable education and background to be a legislator. It's hard to believe you're going to get better legislators than are currently appointed, or better legislators than you would get by popular election.
The Senate is already limited to 250 members. Quadrupling the size can only increase the odds of any individual being chosen. And it's not about the chance of any individual getting chosen, it's about the quality of the sample.
Canadian Senators are appointed by the sitting Prime Minister, for LIFE. They can only be removed for gross impropriety. The are not required to have any legislative experience. Selecting people at random is not going to degrade the quality of candidate.
And what qualifies a person as a legislator? Every year, hundreds of rookie politicians are elected to legislatures. Every politician was a rookie once.
Quote Posted by heywood
Second, the proposal still requires a process for selecting the members to "promote" to the Red Chamber, i.e. elections. There would still be a popularity contest, along with wheeling & dealing between the parties in the assembly to decide who gets to be a sitting Senator.
The Senate would promote people, hopefully based on their performance rather than their party alliance. You can't eliminate partisanship but you can pull its teeth by reducing the influence of money on the selections and by removing the present system of the PM simply stacking the senate with cronies. Surely that's an improvement.
Quote Posted by heywood
The difference is that the proposal would limit who gets to participate in the election process to ~900 people instead of the wider population. That means if you're an outside party looking to influence who sits in the Red Chamber, you only need to target 900 people instead of millions. It could be more easy to influence and less transparent than popular elections.
Canadian Senators are not elected. If they were we would just end up with a situation where one party either controlled BOTH houses (monopoly) or controlled only one (deadlock). Popular elections would be a curse, not a cure. And how do you propose to corrupt 900 people with no sponsors to pay back?
You better have very deep pockets and very clever accountants.
Quote Posted by heywood
Also, you're picking people at random and asking them to carve out time to be a public servant.
At least you aren't expecting them to risk their life savings or become the bitch of some party hacks to get the job.
Quote Posted by heywood
Being selected for jury service is usually a brief commitment and you can skip work for it, yet a lot of people still complain about the disruption and try to get out of it.
The present Senators are notorious for neglecting their duties.
If people want to decline, they decline. If they choose to shirk, no big deal. There's a thousand senators. You can drop a few dozen and still function. It's not a 24/7 gig. Maybe a couple of hours a day. How much time is up to them.
Quote Posted by heywood
Now imagine asking people to commit themselves to be a citizen Senator for a term of what, 2 years? This would HAVE to be voluntary. It would probably also have to be compensated, otherwise you're going to have some of the members asking themselves "what can I get out of this?"
You get to have a direct effect on how your country is governed. You know, civic duty. That might be quite attractive to more people than you think. And if you are good, maybe you get the paying gig, for a few years, with a term limit.
The only compensation for being a cyber-senator is free internet and maybe a secure laptop you get to keep. Only sitting senators get remuneration and staff.
Quote Posted by heywood
Even if you can avoid corruption, expecting the members of the citizen assembly to stay on top of what the Red Chamber is doing is probably asking too much. They may not be versed in law, they may not be interested in political sausage making, and might not have the time. When called on to vote, I imagine most of them are just going to vote their party line.
You can't entirely avoid corruption but this system would make it very very difficult and expensive.
Again, most of our senators have no experience (other than being buddies with the rich and powerful). They learn as they go.
How many members of TTLG participate in the forums? How many does it take to have meaningful dialogues, even with a cadre of trolls on parade? We do pretty well, even without robert's rules of order.
Quote Posted by heywood
That would be my biggest fear: instead of getting a group of people who could stay above politics, you'll get an assembly of 900 people who vote with their party, with the number of people representing each party determined by random chance.
Or maybe when they have a method with more nuance than picking between two colours, they might rise to the challenge.
Quote Posted by heywood
And this assembly has veto power over legislation.
Amen! Which might make the legislators consider public opinion more than once every four years...
Pyrian on 26/1/2018 at 04:03
Quote Posted by Nicker
The model proposed is resistant to corruption because:
Hypothetically. You want to bet everything on a hypothetical. Make it work for a municipality, heck, make it work for a friggen' homeowner's association. Then we'll talk.
Quote Posted by Nicker
- Term limits.
...Tend to increase corruption. Get it while you can, 'cause you're not sticking around anyway.
Quote Posted by Nicker
- A large sample size.
...Not really?
Quote Posted by Nicker
- You don't need to be rich or to have rich friends to get in.
Meaning cheap to buy.
Quote Posted by Nicker
- It's random.
That presents a lot of opportunities.
Quote Posted by Nicker
You better have very deep pockets and very clever accountants.
That is like the definition of the two primary and most abundant resources of the corrupters. "We have a foolproof plan to take down Baskin Robbins, they'll only escape if they have ice cream!"
Renzatic on 26/1/2018 at 04:29
QUOTESTORM!