h a l f b a k e r yVeni, vidi, teenie weenie yellow polka dot bikini.
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,
|
|
|
Elected bodies should reflect the behaviour of the voters: if 36% of the electorate vote, then a house of 100 should only contain 36 elected politicians. The remaining 64 seats should be distributed at random amongst the people who didn't vote (but were eligible to), with no obligation for them to actually
attend meetings (although still receiving any income).
That would reflect the true state of affairs in the 'democracy' you might happen to live in.
Halfbakery: non-voters-party (2001)
http://www.halfbake...ea/non-voters-party
Same general idea, different details. [jutta, Oct 04 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Which 36 seats will be filled in your example? I fear the distribution of non-representation in this sytem will be inequitable. |
|
| |
Wouldn't this encourage existing voters to stop voting, in the off chance that they might actually get picked to get four years pay for no work? |
|
| |
When so many people don't vote (36% is normal in US elections) then one could reasonably propose that that the elected are not representing the other 64% anyway...is that an 'equitable' system? |
|
| |
If you have the right to vote and don't use it, then really you shouldn't have another say in government for the next five/four years, because you forfeited that right by not voting. |
|
| |
Or maybe you'd like to force everyone to vote, would that be better? |
|
| |
How do you decide which states get "real" senators and which get randomly selected non-voters? Wouldn't a state that had someone actually representing it be better off than its neighbor, whose senators are chillin' at home and hittin' the bong? That's what I meant by inequitable. |
|
| |
Perhaps I'm thinking of something that reflects the distance between politics and ordinary people? Maybe ppl her are suggesting that the politicians get some better voters? |
|
| |
People are becoming depoliticised, and our government should reflect that. |
|
| |
(and please, we're not all thinking of the US. Where I live we don't have states) |
|
| |
I think it would be more interesting to redraw districts so that people who *actually* voted (rather than total population or eligible voters) are divided into equal groups. If 43,500,000 people voted across the nation for the 435 Congressional districts available, cut up the country so each district has 100,000 voters. If Vermont has a good get-out-the-vote drive, maybe they are rewarded with another representative. If voters are bored with the choice in California, maybe they lose a couple of seats. It would still be more fair than the difference in Senate representation per 100,000 people, and it would be a lot more fun to watch during elections. |
|
| |
long live americentrism <sigh!> |
|
| |
Why should government reflect the depoliticised section of the public, when they have the least interest politics? The whole point of government is to represent the people, but if the people don't want to be represented, then can we really force them to be? |
|
| |
Party Animal: It was you who brought up the U.S. I am perfectly aware that other democracies exist. |
|
| |
mrouse: Interesting thought... |
|
| |
Ooooh, heck no. Unless you used this as a threat to get people voting... better to have voting a compulsory requirement of citizenship, or (changing tack completely) anarchy. |
|
| |