h a l f b a k e r yThunk.
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,
|
|
|
In an effort to curb the sheer corruption, stupidity and
venality that characterises politics in almost all nations,
everyone agrees there needs to be some change to the
way
we elect our politicians.
Here goes nothing: A monthly lottery, in which the
winner
stands to pick up a stupidly
large fortune (let's pick an
arbitrary number like USD$20 million or its purchasing
power parity equivalent in your country, which is pretty
much chump change for most governments) and is
elected
as a full member of your country's house of
representatives
or its parliamentary equivalent in your country.
As the new member is sworn in the remaining politicians
are all eligible for dismissal, with the loser decided by
the
latest winner having nominated the member they wish to
see deposed, at the time they buy a ticket. Tickets cost
a
minimal amount... say $1 each. One ticket per person
per
month, maximum.
A few points:
- This won't be anywhere near as disruptive as you think,
because it's really the bureaucrats in each department
who
run the show... elected officials are just the front man
for
the department.
- Electoral costs drop to practically nil, as the cost of
running the lottery is subsidised by the players.
- Electoral advertising campaigns are a thing of the past,
unless you count the ads for the lottery, which are
already
part of the advertising landscape.
- Statistically, you should see even representation across
the entire population, as the choice of candidates is left
to
chance.
- No term limits apply, as any representative can be
removed by the incoming representative at any time.
- Disruptions during transition of government, from one
major ideological side of existing bi-partisan politics to
the other, no longer occurs.
No doubt there are problems with the system but this
can
hardly be better or worse than the existing system/s.
Apathetic_20Representatives
[mouseposture, May 16 2011]
Random Congress, President
Random Congress, President
[EdisonsTwin]'s idea from 4 years ago pretty much covers this idea [marked-for-deletion] redundant with idea linked. [zen_tom, May 16 2011]
Draft First Term Representatives
Draft First Term Representatives
A slight twist on the theme from 2004, where politicians are randomly selected, but once in, have the opportunity to stay - essentially the same idea as presented here again. [zen_tom, May 16 2011]
Single term politicians
[xaviergisz, May 17 2011]
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:
|
| |
So instead of buying votes, they buy tickets in bulk? I don't see how this changes that much. |
|
| |
How can you buy tickets in bulk if they're limited to
one per person, [Ray]? |
|
| |
I'll give a tentative [+] on the understanding that there is some kind of minimum intelligence/ability requirement for entering the lottery. |
|
| |
My solution is that politicians can only serve a single term. Then politicians will spend more time doing what's right rather than trying to get re-elected. (Yes, lots of problems with my idea as well). |
|
| |
Ultimately there is no optimal solution. There are just a bunch of mediocre solutions; some slightly better than others. |
|
| |
//on the understanding that there is some kind of
minimum intelligence/ability requirement for
entering the lottery.// |
|
| |
This hasn't occurred to candidate pre-selection
committees in the past, it seems. |
|
| |
Yes it has: quite a few candidates have had rather minimum intelligence/ability. |
|
| |
If it's really the bureaucrats, ie. middle management, that run the show then explain Ford under a: Jaques Nasser vs. b: Alan Mullaly. |
|
| |
//everyone agrees there needs to be some change to the way we elect our politicians//
Heh! Not in the UK we don't...apparently.
I quite like this idea though. + (I note that I voted + for the Random Congress idea too, so at least I'm consistent if nothing else). |
|
| |
If the body in question is to small, the probabilities will tend to produce large shifts in viewpoint instead of //Statistically, you should see even representation across the entire population, as the choice of candidates is left to chance.
//. If you make the body in question large enoguh, however, this gets less and less likely. |
|
| |