|
|
|
|
|
|
by thechao
2054 days ago
|
|
|
A sibling mentioned this is called sortition. The main drawback another sibling mentioned is lack experience. I think a good combination is 'sortition & incumbency'. Elections occur in two phases: 1. If an incumbent wants to keep their seat, they keep their seat with a K% chance, say 50/50; and, 2. All remaining seats are chosen at random from the eligible (see below) that apply for the position. An additional tweak is to require 'previous experience' by having statesfolk work in lower level representative positions. For instance: anyone qualifies for city council (maybe not metropolises) or county level positions; a person just puts their name in the hat to get started. Once a statesperson has successfully had a complete term at city/county level they can move to the state level, then the Federal level. It could even be lateral: lower-house to upper-house. There are 10s-of-thousands of county & city level positions, giving a sizable pool of new statesfolk to draw from. The incumbency mechanism allows a subset of representatives to maintain stability & gain experience "in situ"; the pipelining provides a naturally trained pool of statesfolk. The sortition mechanism is a robust anti-gerrymandering, anti-corruption, anti-just-about-everything-we-don't-like-in-government mechanism. |
|
|
I'd argue that the worst aspect of the US political system is the fine margins between two fiercely partisan factions which random members of the public tend to strongly identify with. Making which faction with ~45% hardcore supporters [in swing states] has control a matter of dumb luck as opposed to whether their conduct impresses or appals the few people able to see merit in both political philosophies doesn't sound like an improvement.
Also, the incentive to be corrupt certainly isn't weakened by removing any incentive to present oneself as clean for future re-election from the equation.