h a l f b a k e r yIf ever there was a time we needed a bowlologist, it's now.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
It's too easy for politicians to remain in office. All they
have to do is
convince their constituents that they're fighting for them,
whether
or not they actually are. And even assuming they are, the
fighting
part is troubling. After all, if you're winning, somebody
else must be
losing.
The
obvious solution is to have all voters elect
candidates from
regions except their own, swapping them randomly at
each election.
So you might vote for the state comptroller of Florida one
year, and
a Senate seat from Nebraska the next. But that would
negate any concept of
constituency, since you never know who you're supposed to
be
representing.
So let's tweak that a bit. As each election cycle comes, a
random
number between, say, 1 and 10 is drawn for each
candidate. An 8
or lower means candidates are voted on by citizens within
their
locality, as usual. On drawing a 9 or 10, however, that
race enters
the pool. Once all numbers are drawn, pooled races are
distributed randomly to regions that were selected to be
in the pool.
This way, you're *probably* going to be re-elected by your
primary
constituency. But you might not be, and that should give
you
something to think about the next time you try to pass
legislation
that only benefits the members of the regional Pork Barrel
Producers'
Association.
[link]
|
|
I have often wondered what might happen if we were to change our representation style to simply have some positions elected and be 'at large' instead of held by committee members from X or Y state. |
|
|
One downside of your system, information about whom you're voting for would be difficult to come by though and so misinformation is likely to spread, not that it already doesn't... |
|
|
I think this is an interesting concept, but unfortunately I'm not sure it's a solution to the problems of corruption and underhandedness, that exists in all goverenments. |
|
|
Sorry, but the biggest corruption the USA currently
faces is at the federal level. |
|
|
Large corps are the only ones big enough to afford
the senator's rental prices, and they know that they
get more ROI investing in bribes at the federal level. |
|
|
Having the senators less beholden to their
constituency would not make them more beholden
to society at large (which already comes in a distant
3rd place), but would just strengthen the first place
influence: lobbyists. |
|
| |