h a l f b a k e r yWe got your practicality ... right here.
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.
|
Remember how people complain about how the politican
is elected saying one thing but doing the opposite?
(Often by lobbying?) Well how about this?
Each politican is assigned a group of random citizens in
his/her district to vet the politican decision. The larger
the district, the larger the
group.
Qute simply when the politican votes, him/her can be
muzzed by the jury.
if( "% of jury support the politican decision" > %Threshold
){ "Politican vote counted"} else { "Politican vote not
counted" }
How does this help? It provides an ongoing vetting
procedure against unfaithful behaviour by politicant, and
reduce political infidality.
Impeachment must be done through the juries only, via
supermajority decision. It should not be via other
politican (who could be gamed).
Alternatively, we could just replace politicants all
together, and switch to full on 'jury' lawmaking, twitch
plays pokemon style.
Better Nation
http://www.betterna...ry-duty-the-answer/
Posted 2012 [Skewed, Aug 19 2014]
Demarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy
Demarchy (or lottocracy) refers to a form of government in which the state is governed by randomly selected decision makers who have been selected by sortition (lot) from a broadly inclusive pool of eligible citizens. [mofosyne, Aug 19 2014]
How Selecting Voters Randomly Can Lead to Better Elections
http://www.wired.co...05/st_essay_voting/
[mofosyne, Aug 26 2015]
[link]
|
| |
Jury lawmaking = rule by oligarchy / mafia, which is
close to what we have now anyway thanks to
Citizens United. |
|
| |
Well in theory, the jury would function much like
jurors in the justice system. They serve as the final
arbiter of the public. |
|
| |
Instead of saying guilty or not guilty. They 'allow' or
'disallow' a proposed law from getting voted in. They
don't write laws. |
|
| |
It's one notch above "twitch plays a country" |
|
| |
So: more direct democracy. A reasonable but boring
notion in some respects, but a concept with new
legs thanks to the internet. |
|
| |
//Instead of saying guilty or not guilty. They 'allow' or 'disallow' a proposed law from getting voted in. They don't write laws// |
|
| |
So what you're suggesting is in fact... the house of lords. |
|
| |
Or at least as it would be if parliament wasn't allowed to bugger with it so the incumbent party could load it with new life peers from their own bench. |
|
| |
After all the lottery of birth is as random a way to choose your jurors as any other. |
|
| |
Within a few hundred years (uninterrupted by partisan parties) family fortunes would rise & fall & they'd probably be as a random a bunch as any other. |
|
| |
Gadzooks! methinks this may be partly baked? |
|
| |
Nope.. on reflection I think we can probably claim it's fully baked, not new anyway :) |
|
| |
Then lets see more 'house of lords' then, but
where
memberships are absolutely randomised and is not
heredity. |
|
| |
Should be much simpler to run compared to my
initial
idea. |
|
| |
Btw: What if they are able to block the
government from invading another country? Being
made of randomized people (that rotates often),
it would be much harder to corrupt them. |
|
| |
Do you guys mind if I make another modified half
bakery, but with the "randomized house of lords"
configuration, rather than the proportional
parliamentary configuration (Because
gerrymandering might be an issue here)? |
|
| |
A hereditary system is probably the cheapest 'random' one to administer, the problem is the position itself tends to attract the folding stuff. |
|
| |
So (despite my earlier assertion) they probably wouldn't be completely random across the social spectrum, a family blessed with the post would probably tend to rise through the social strata. |
|
| |
So life peers only with another method of choosing them would probably be best for randomising. |
|
| |
We could make a big thing of it on TV when we need a new one with pretty girls in bikinis & tassels to pull the numbers out of the randomiser & all, maybe they could wear [bliss]'s Magnetic G-Strings :o |
|
| |
//Being made of randomized people (that rotates often), it would be much harder to corrupt them// |
|
| |
An argument could be made that a life peer may be less corruptible, having no need to make hay while the sun shines (while they still have the post) & (like a judge) can't be strong-armed over his post so has no fears for his 'job' if going against those in power. |
|
| |