Submitted 3 weeks ago by VetOfTheSeas@discuss.online to workreform@lemmy.world
https://discuss.online/pictrs/image/f1ba139f-599f-42f2-b912-806d8362abdd.jpeg
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.
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.
I’ve not met a single person who disagrees with this system.
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.
Oh look! You’ve made the bribery problem even worse.
Most importantly, 24/7 surveillance. No secrets. No back room deals.
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.
Have you met a random person?
Know any politicians?
I have indeed, I still trust them more than anyone who actually wants to be in politics.
Probably why they’re here instead of Reddit.
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.
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?
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
Couldn’t we all just vote on shit regularly from home and do away with representatives altogether?
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.
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.
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.
The idea behind a high salary for representatives is that they don’t need to take on extra money from lobbyists to survive. Keep the salaries, but make bribery illegal again and things will get better. Make the salaries low AND get the money out of politics and you’ll only get rich people becoming politicians. Oh and term limits should be a thing.
Bribery is still illegal. But it’s not a “bribe” unless it’s paid directly to the candidate in exchange for something specific (quid pro quo). So you just need to obfuscate that deal enough so that you can’t prove it’s a bribe, in the legal sense. (SuperPACs, etc).
Tbf yes, that’s what I meant. The legal form of bribery, shouldn’t be.
Just pay well in advance of whatever you ask for and it’s fine
I’m sorry who the fuck has a $1000 deductible??? We have decent insurance for the US and the deductible is $7500 each (family plan thru employment)…
My insurance is fully covered by my employer. It’s rare, but it does exist.
Your employer pays your deductible?
If you make like <=25k/year (individual), subsidizes make it possible…
OP has no idea what health insurance cost these days.
I guess the idea of paying them well is that they can’t be bought with bribes. Then again, when has any wealthy person ever been satisfied.
If the job didn’t pay a salary, the only people who could do the job would be the rich who don’t need a salary, or those willing to accept bribes.
If you make the salary too low, it will discourage anybody who can make a better living doing something else. And, if the people doing it don’t think they’re being paid what they’re really worth, they’re more likely to take bribes or “donations” to boost their salary back up to what it should be.
Really, the salary should be high. It should be a job that people who are really qualified will want to do. It should be one where you have no need to take a bribe because you’re already doing so well, and you’d be afraid of throwing away such a well compensated job.
I wouldn’t say it’s so that they can’t be bought, so much as so they don’t have to be bought. It’s part of the reason they haven’t voted for a pay raise and so long. Their owners don’t want them to have other options.
Lawmakers don’t vote for their pay raises, they don’t need to. The increases were made automatic in 1989. Even with the annual increases, their pay is nothing compared to what they can make from insider information and contributions from anonymous PACs. They can be bought, government salary just can’t compete with dark money.
Ah, that makes sense.
Honestly, there’s a load of satisfied wealthy people - you just don’t hear about them because, well, there’s literally nothing to report about them.
They also carry a hell of a lot more responsibility than the average American worker. Is be in favor of a party raise along with restricting other income streams like stock investments.
300 a month and a thousand dollar deductible?!?!
where the fuck is that deal, it’s like 8k deductible and 600 a month
Oh man I’m sorry
While this sounds good on the surface, the problem is that requiring legislators to live with the same financial difficulties most of us face would lead to sharp increases in direct bribery and overt corruption. As bad as it is anyway that effectively unlimited campaign/PAC contributions can be used to corrupt them, if their personal finances were significantly more trying, it would be much worse, especially given that most legislators have more personal expenses than the average person, including maintaining resdences in both DC and their home state/district. The much better (but also much, much more difficult) solution would be to raise the incomes of most Americans rather than to reduce the income of the legislators.
yeah i was a hell of a lot more sympathetic to that totally unverified supposition (not argument) when i didn’t believe there was rampant corruption in every branch of local state and federal government. it’s like those pictures of “LOOK WHAT COMMUNISM WOULD GET YOU” and it’s just pictures of homelessness under capitalism.
solution would be to raise the incomes of most Americans rather than to reduce the income of the legislators.
yeah that’s the point. if these chucklefucks kicking back on open corruption were forced (forced) to live on the average american salary they’d be more apt to fix the bullshit holding wages down. that’s my unverified supposition though. actually, now i’ve come to think of it, the fact that our government is subject to corruption despite their high compensation (supposedly) buoying up fragile moralities seems to be evidence against your initial supposition. Let’s try the other way.
Lmao they are all ready taking bribes bruh
It absolutely is, but there is still a massive motivational difference between needing campaign funds to facilitate getting re-elected and needing personal money to pay for rent/mortgage, food, childcare, etc. The latter opens the door to the kinds of bribes that, if promises made are unfulfilled, come with direct personal consequences, and potentially violent ones. By contrast, if a politician doesn’t make good on a promise made in return for campaign/PAC contributions, they typically are only risking that support being given to their opponent next time around.
“Maintaining residences in both DC and their home state/district” I’ve got that solved: We build a dorm facility in Washington and require them to stay there.
I don’t know. On one hand, I think it’s naive to think that dragging these politicians down to our level is going to make them see things through a different lens, as most of them are multi-millionaires anyway and the pay they get is just the gravy on top, and reducing their salaries isn’t going to fix any kind of budgetary problem all on it’s own - the money that they earn off of taxpayers is nothing compared to the national debt.
On the other hand, this cadre of politicians who exercise the most power and authority is so openly corrupt now that they do not even bother to hide it anymore. I feel like you can’t get much worse than we already are without them resorting to literal mustache twirling acts of villainy.
Now, if we were somehow able to make them give up their wealth, to divest themselves from the financial consequences of their actions and live with the lasting legacy that they themselves wrought for others, that might have some effect, but that would require people to be altruistic and principled enough to understand that taking a job as a public servant shouldn’t make you rich, and you should do it for the good of the people you represent.
Then investigate, have a process, stop treating them as untouchable prima donas
I agree on spirit, but in practice this will just make them even easier to be bought.
As if they aren’t already bought. At least you’ll have one of your own elevated and not some already rich asshole trying to get richer.
I honestly believe that AoC’s personal finances are shit.
I didn’t say they aren’t already, just that it would be even easier if they’re paid less.
I think this is overstated. You can’t even run for Congress without being a millionaire, a millionaire’s family, a lawyer, a lobbyist, or a military officer looking to cash out.
You can’t get in the door of Congress without being in hoc to a constellation of private interests.
you got a point. Also I think that they get bought of either way, so why not safe a little on their salary ;)
And they have to work 40 hours a week every week, or they get no benefits… just…like…us.
Or rather, they only get the benefits guaranteed to all citizens.
$1000 deductible?? i wish
$300/month 😂😭😢😐
I was on private health insurance for a couple of years. My premium was over $300 a month and my deductible was $7000. I had looked for an ACA policy on the government website but something with the same level of deductible was closer to $1000 a month. What really sucked is that my private policy did not qualify for the exemption from the fine you had to pay for not having health insurance. Somehow I never had to pay the fine, I dunno why not. I’m sure my policy also would have fucked me if I’d ever tried to collect on it, but fortunately I was completely healthy during that stretch.
I disagree. Low salaries in congress is exactly the kind of thing that gives lobbyists power.
Poor staffers and low paid representatives are more likely to become lobbyists themselves or to take bribes. Congresspeople should be given an ultimatum, they can only serve in congress if they agree to never make income from any other source ever again in their lives… even after one term. In return, they’re guaranteed a modest pension starting when they leave that pays 80% of their current salary, increasing with inflation. They can not trade stocks, accept gifts, or own any form of property except a single residence.
If you want to serve the people, you can only serve the people and not yourself. Congresspeople should be truly selfless individuals.
pretty sure most of them are millionaires, because the billionaire donors are giving them money, in other forms.
How about this:
We pay politicians in “X times the minimum wage”; for the sake of this example I’ll say 30x the minimum wage (too much? Too little? I don’t know, that’s not important rn)
The thing is, they can’t change this number, at all. The only way they can increase their salaries is to increase the minimum wage.
The Great Stink 1858 caused by the combination of everyone dumping their refuse into the river Thames and unusually low water levels, was being mostly ignored by the British parliament until the members were forced to return to work in the parliament building close to the river where the smell was at its worst.
Salary will have unintended consequences.
Why would anyone choose that job unless they were already very wealthy?
You don’t want people in power being easy to bribe. It’s bad enough as it is.
Pay them 5 million per year for all I care so long as they actually represent the people and not private interest groups, are not currupt, and are some of the best people for the job. And that would be an incredibility good deal.
People can be wealthy and not totally out of touch if they make an effort to listen to people
I thought after citizens united they represent corporations not us
We are long past the point where they represented us.
That would further incentivize their corruption
Well then that’s not capitalism.
Tbh idk why people think capitalism is a good thing. It’s just feudalism with corporations.
In the history books when they discuss the hundreds or thousands of small cuts that eventually killed America, Mike Johnson may very well be one of the most prominent captioned photos.
Making politicians even more susceptible to corruption. Great populism. Populism tends to serve the roch after all.
Y’all got a 1k deductible?
They only work a few months a year. For example, in USA they are only in session a few days until November, with all of October off.
Have you ever watched them in session? Even when they’re “working” it’s like 90% dead time, moving at a snail’s pace.
What other job pays almost 200K a year, with half of the year off, the very best of health care included, and you can take time off whenever you’d like? Months! …and that job ensures you’ll always be able to out-perform the very best with your “insightful” stock trading?.. and you can appoint your husband as the “ambassador of Bermuda”, and travel to Bermuda on the taxpayer’s dime?
The Democrats are swimming in this shit just like “The Nazis”. Just look at them. Revolting trash, the lot.
I vote, you should vote… but never forget, they are contemptuous vipers who will backstab you and everyone standing with you without a second thought. They won’t even remember your name.
They weren’t ever supposed to represent you, they represent rich white men like they were intended. It’s literally designed to favor the rich because literally every single one of the signers of the bill of rights was a wealthy dude, to a man they were middle - upper class and in general criminals at that.
This seems like it would make a rampant corrupt system even more corrupt. Imagine how cheap you could buy a rep for if they only made 60k on the books.
70? They shouldnt be electable after 60!
I want to hire someone who will take over vital aspects of my survival. But I want to do it in a punitive sort of way that makes sure the job will only be taken by people without the education, experience, and talent to demand more.
It’s okay to pay politicians. This genuinely is a “pay more, get more” kind of situation, at least up to a reasonable point.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
I get the idea behind it, but this very much would backfire in that only the rich could become representation. Remember they made it a rule that they aren’t allowed to sleep in their office while in D.C., and 60k not only won’t afford a place in D.C, it most definitely won’t allow for someone to have a home their constituents home AND D.C.
So we would end up with just having first or second sons of oligarchs, 1 trained to run the companies, the other trained to represent their families best interests.
Godnroc@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Or, and hear me out in this one, if the average is not sustainable they would need to raise the average or lower costs until a balance was reached. By forcing them to play by the very rules that are writing, there is an incentive to make them fair.
While this may not be there exact way too achieve that, the goal is still a good one to work towards.
Devial@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
And how is that supposed to work ? You can’t fix the healthcare care system or economy in a day, so non wealthy people would still struggle to live as politicians whilst those changes are being worked on, meaning there’s little motivation for them to join politics, and independently wealthy people who are just in it for the power wouldn’t give a fuck about being badly paid. Look at Trump. He doesn’t even take a salary, because he’s corrupt and wealthy enough to not need it, so his salary being low would matter fuck all to him and other corrupt pieces of crap like him.
Steve@communick.news 3 weeks ago
The problem is, representatives and senators don’t live an average lifestyles. They need to pay for two residences, one of which is in one of the most expensive metro areas in the country. Then the constant transit costs between the two. They also pay their staff out of their own pocket if I remember correctly.
Truth is they need to be paid much more. With 100% of salary in retirement. And they need to be barred from any kind of employment after.
protist@retrofed.com 3 weeks ago
I think you misunderstood what you’re responding to. This would create a situation where being in politics is only not sustainable for people of average means. People who are already independently wealthy would have no trouble at all sustaining themselves on an average salary and have zero (0) incentive to do anything to make life easier for you or I.
The problem isn’t that people in Congress get paid a decent wage. The problem is they have so much money from their families, from their businesses, and/or from lobbyists that they’re more or less totally divorced from what life is like for most people
galacticbackhoe@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You could have just posted the image again, but this was slightly less cheeky. I did enjoy the hear me out.
Serinus@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
We don’t need the entire country to have a second home in DC and to be resistant to bribes.
Congress should make good enough money that they don’t need to invest in the stock market and they don’t care about negligible bribes. Bigger bribes are theoretically easier to catch in the legal system and/or public accountability.
Asetru@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Not only the rich but also the corrupt that would then sell their voice to the highest bidder.
terminatortwo@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Good thing neither of those are the case in the current system!
CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Well that’s easy then. Federally owned dorm housing for congress.
blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
There are easy solutions to that problem. $60k plus cost of living stipends for the two homes, which can’t be spent on anything else, and only modest homes are eligible.
Tiger@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
For people complaining about the cost of living to cover in DC, build them some public housing barracks they can stay in so they have that covered.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Agreed, but mostly why would a rep not be able to sleep on their office and return home? That’s rediculous
discocactus@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That’s BS, you could definitely afford to live there, it’d just be in a shithole. Which is exactly the point.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
How many people do you know making $60k per year that maintain two homes in cities a thousand miles apart,and frequently travel between them?
jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Some state legislatures already do stuff like this. Full time job for a few months out of the year that pays like $40k.
The people who run for office are the people who can afford to.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
That can easily be fixed. Salary is the median (not average, because making more ultra-wealthy shouldn’t be encouraged) US income + median COL in DC. Maybe add some extra on top to cover travel and other expenses.
The goal is to make enriching the American people equivalent to enriching themselves. Currently it’s usually the opposite.