Have you met a random person?
Comment on Min wage in most states is so sad
4grams@awful.systems 1 day ago
I think the government should switch to a random lottery. Every term a random person is selected from all available and eligible citizens. It would be our civic duty, put your regular job on hold for a few years and do your part.
Most would hate it, but that’s kinda the point. If we all had to eat our own dogfood, we’d eventually start making it taste better.
wewbull@feddit.uk 1 day ago
discocactus@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Know any politicians?
jj4211@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Think the rough analogy is Jury duty. After going through that, I was frankly surprised how generally decent the folks were that were being vetted. Sure a couple were a bit off, but on the whole the folks seemed pretty reasonable. I didn’t agree with some of them, but at least they seemed to be roughly rational and open to thinking about things.
WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 1 day ago
Probably why they’re here instead of Reddit.
4grams@awful.systems 23 hours ago
I have indeed, I still trust them more than anyone who actually wants to be in politics.
BillyClark@piefed.social 22 hours ago
There are also several proposals of random voting that have a lot of good things about them. In one system, you pick a random ballot out of all ballots, and whoever that person voted for wins for all positions.
Or, you can do it per elected position. Take all of the votes for each elected position and pick a random vote.
One advantage of random ballots is that no elected official is safe. A candidate who gets 60% of the vote can lose to a candidate who got 20% of the vote.
Why is this good?
Well, for one thing, it would be much harder to gerrymander. Gerrymandering generally means you have one party win most districts by a tiny amount, and the other party wins very few districts by a large amount. This strategy simply doesn’t work with random ballots.
Another benefit is that politicians would be incentivized to get as many votes as possible, far beyond 50%. Even a politician who gets 90% of the vote would lose 1 in 10 elections. So, politicians would work for everybody’s vote, not just for the slim majority’s vote.
It has other advantages beyond that. Mostly in the realm of the fairness of votes. You vote feels completely fair. It’s just as likely that your vote will decide the winner as anybody else’s vote.
One big disadvantage is that there might be an extremely popular politician, who has 99% of the vote, and who still loses. This can be mitigated a bit by keeping terms short. The politician could come back in a couple of years.
Another disadvantage is that it is very difficult to recount the ballots. You basically just pick another random ballot and all of the winners might change. And related, it’s more difficult to detect cheating after the fact. Like, what if the ballot wasn’t completely random?
Dnb@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 hours ago
Seems like that would cause massive voter dissatisfaction and less people to vote. Not many vote now because they feel like their vote doesn’t count
BillyClark@piefed.social 18 hours ago
Literally exactly the opposite of what you said. I addressed those exact two points in the comment you replied to as being strengths of random ballot.
The most obvious specific benefits of random ballot to the voter are less voter dissatisfaction and feeling more like your vote counts.
Less dissatisfaction because politicians will try to appeal to every voter. They don’t want to leave it up to chance.
More like your vote counts because your vote has an equal chance of choosing the winner as anybody else’s vote. It doesn’t matter how anybody else votes.
If you want to say that the opposite will happen, then you not only need to give specific reasons, but you should also know that there is already a lot of research on these types of elections. That’s why my comment seemed so informed, while yours didn’t.
Dnb@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 hours ago
Your comment makes you sound like an ass.
There are many thing wrong with it off the top of my head
- logistics
- electronic vs paper, many different ballots, how is it chosen, etc
- different ballots in every single city for local issues
- pushes further for vote disenfranchisement
- massively increases minority power
Having someone with 90% support lose to some racist nazi seems like a shit system
Leviathan@fedinsfw.app 23 hours ago
Couldn’t we all just vote on shit regularly from home and do away with representatives altogether?
4grams@awful.systems 23 hours ago
I honestly think we need representational government. One of our big problems in this country is regular people thinking they understand all the nuance of an issue. Not that random assholes completely solve this issue, but the law of averages is enough that some would take this seriously and actually learn, listen and think before acting.
It’s mostly a joke though, obviously a random lottery will never happen, but I absolutely would choose it over what we have today.
Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 21 hours ago
Who decides what a random person is and what a knowledgeable person is in your scenario though? Where are these knowledgeable people? Our current Speaker of the House every time he gets in front of a TV Camera claims he knows nothing at all whatsoever. He’s never heard anything he’s never read anything he’s never seen anything and he just doesn’t know about anything. So knowledgeable people aren’t in charge now.
Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 21 hours ago
Maybe not everything, but we could certainly vote on a lot more directly. There’s no reason we couldn’t. Representative government was a necessity when we only used horses to get everywhere. Now much less reason for it.
Serinus@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
The other point of representative government is that the people making the decisions can spend the time to research what they’re voting on.
Leviathan@fedinsfw.app 19 hours ago
It could be from macro to much more micro, e.g.: what portion of the budget should be allocated to education? And then how is the budget allocated, etc. everyone must vote in the first few votes and then as the issues get more nitty gritty and local the only people voting are those in the localities and/or those who care. You could vote on everything but realistically you’ll just set the main direction and the rest just happens.
The more you think about this the more complicated it seems, even if the concept isn’t that complicated. I’ve thought about this a lot for a long time and I honestly think we’d get so much more done.
Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 21 hours ago
Sortition. It’s a system that sounded crazy decades ago when I first heard it, but the more and more you think about it the more and more it doesn’t seem that bad.
discocactus@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’ve said this for years. Live in dorms. Cafeteria food. Minimum wage. All assets put into trust and in a vanilla total market fund for 5-10 years after service. It should be like jury duty. I’ve not met a single person who disagrees with this system.
TheMightyCat@ani.social 23 hours ago
Well consider me the first.
Then first the plan won’t work, those dorms will be run by the very government politicians they are supposed to make miserable. so they won’t.
And why must that be a goal in the first place? Instead of improving democracy so that politicians aren’t in the pockets of PACs and actually represent the people, you want to just make them both miserable and now unelected.
If you want that random people are in charge instead of politicians a direct democracy system will work far better then this.
Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Who said anything about making them miserable? That isn’t, and shouldn’t be, the goal. The goal is to remove incentives to be corrupt.
A nice dorm and high quality food provided to them removes some of that.
Locking assets into total market funds removes incentive to inside trade, because you can’t.
jj4211@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Think this assumes those selected have no friends or family. You can’t uproot a whole family, and it would be unreasonable to break up a family for the extended period of time you imagine.
In practice, it does become making them miserable, because it’s literally forced relocation and isolation from their friends, family, and financial resources.
TheMightyCat@ani.social 22 hours ago
I got that from this statement, my mistake then.
ThisUsernameKillsFascists@piefed.social 7 hours ago
Dorms, cafeteria food, and minimum wage are not things that most Americans would want. It would really only be a benefit to those already making minimum wage (or unemployed) and without families. For the rest those would be motives for corruption, rather than the opposite.
ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 23 hours ago
Oh look! You’ve made the bribery problem even worse.
ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Most importantly, 24/7 surveillance. No secrets. No back room deals.
Serinus@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
No one should live under 24/7 surveillance.
ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Lots of us, maybe even most, are under surveillance every minute we are at our job. A politician’s job is 24/7 while they are in office. It wouldn’t be necessary if politicians never lied or took bribes, but we live in reality.