[api]

I once heard Hollywood described as a network of law firms that happens to make movies. It's the most litigious industry on Earth, or one of them. They don't just sue you and I. They sue each other constantly, battling over royalties and residuals and rights and IP theft (which does happen in Hollywood of course).

I love good film as art but the industry seems certifiably insane in lots of ways: litigious, nepotistic, backbiting, full of sex abuse and other nastiness. I have sympathy and respect for anyone (actors, actresses, writers, etc.) who love the art enough to deal with that crap.

[underlipton]

I feel like there should be some sort of direct "judicial review" by non-attorneys. The only reason stuff like this is possible is because we're governed by lawyers; they've captured law and shaped it towards their ends, and away from its utility as dispute resolution so that people can get back to non-law, non-dispute life.

[Teever]

Sortition is the term you're looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Western democracies would be far better off with some sort of legislative body that was comparable in power to the existing bodies such as the senate / parliament.

Another solution to our existing problems in western democracies would be a mechanism to select 'none of the above' on a ballot. If a super majority of the electorate chooses the 'none of the above' option than that election is a do-over and the candidates who ran are forbidden from running in that jurisdiction for a period of time -- let's say five years.

A couple cycles of that will flush the crap out of our system real quick.

But like you said... the system is run by lawyers, for lawyers, so we're not likely to get these kinds of changes.

[fhdkweig]

> Another solution to our existing problems in western democracies would be a mechanism to select 'none of the above' on a ballot. If a super majority of the electorate chooses the 'none of the above' option than that election is a do-over and the candidates who ran are forbidden from running in that jurisdiction for a period of time -- let's say five years.

If you are starting a new government from scratch, I think it would work. But bolting it onto an already broken system would create perverse incentives for the outgoing broken politicians to deliberately nominate terrible replacement candidates. If everyone chose 'none of the above', the broken politicians would get to stay in power forever (or alternatively the position is left vacant forever).

I am a big fan of rank-choice voting. I like the fact that the incumbent legislatures are scared of it. If they are scared, it must be a true threat to them. While this would be a threat to both Democrats and Republicans, it is mostly the red states that try to ban in, going so far as to amend their state constitutions. Alaska has/had it for a brief moment and as a result have a higher number of independents in their state. But even they have factions trying to undermine it.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=alaska+rank+choice+voting+r...

https://www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-bans-ranked-choice-v...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...

[sterlind]

it's called a "jury."

[underlipton]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire#United_States

[gamblor956]

Most lawmakers are not lawyers.

[underlipton]

And lobbyists? Judges? (Particularly appellate.)

[gamblor956]

Most lobbyists are not lawyers. All judges are lawyers.

[underlipton]

Most of the decision-making power within lobbying organizations lies with lawyers. Effectively, most lobbyists are lawyers, regardless of if most of the staff within those orgs are not.

And lobbyists write our laws.