Randomocracy
2004-10-06 01:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archershipsCould it be true that out of 280 million people, George W. Bush and John Kerry are the best we can do? Most people seem to be motivated by hatred of Bush or Kerry, than because their own candidate truly inspires them. U.S. citizens used to snicker at Soviet era Communist "elections" in which only communists were allowed on the ballot. Yet if it's bad for a single party to monopolize power, is a duopoly much better? No third party has won control of any major political institution since the Republicans displaced the Whigs in the 1870's.
I think that part of the problem is the size of the country. No one without access to tens of millions of dollars can afford to run for president these days. As a result, candidates must be wealthy and/or skilled at soliciting wealth from special interests, if they hope to be elected.
To improve the selection of the president, I'd like to suggest the following method of selecting a candidate:
* Establish an independent institution (call it the "Election Commission" or EC for short) whose job it would be to administer elections.
* If a citizen wanted to run for president, they would submit their name to the EC.
* The EC would then randomly select a representative sample of the national population to each candidate. Each candidate would get a different sample.
* Each presidential candidate would then be required to get at least say, 75% approval from their sample. The candidates would be required to pay for the costs of creating the sample, and for communicating with the citizens in their sample.
* The EC would then select the president at random from the pool of candidates who had received at least 75% approval from their sample.
Such a selection process could potentially:
* increase the ability of candidates with new ideas to reach an audience
* increase resistance to special interests
* increase the likelihood that we will elect a candidate who has broad popular support
* dramatically reduce the cost of electing a president
Obviously, this idea would need to be fleshed out a lot more -- I record it here mostly so I don't forget it.
I think that part of the problem is the size of the country. No one without access to tens of millions of dollars can afford to run for president these days. As a result, candidates must be wealthy and/or skilled at soliciting wealth from special interests, if they hope to be elected.
To improve the selection of the president, I'd like to suggest the following method of selecting a candidate:
* Establish an independent institution (call it the "Election Commission" or EC for short) whose job it would be to administer elections.
* If a citizen wanted to run for president, they would submit their name to the EC.
* The EC would then randomly select a representative sample of the national population to each candidate. Each candidate would get a different sample.
* Each presidential candidate would then be required to get at least say, 75% approval from their sample. The candidates would be required to pay for the costs of creating the sample, and for communicating with the citizens in their sample.
* The EC would then select the president at random from the pool of candidates who had received at least 75% approval from their sample.
Such a selection process could potentially:
* increase the ability of candidates with new ideas to reach an audience
* increase resistance to special interests
* increase the likelihood that we will elect a candidate who has broad popular support
* dramatically reduce the cost of electing a president
Obviously, this idea would need to be fleshed out a lot more -- I record it here mostly so I don't forget it.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-06 06:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-06 07:54 am (UTC)Chinese I recall that one of our most dire curses on someone is "may you live in interesting times."
We get what we got because we got what we wanted. The problem isn't the politicians. The problem is the people.
There was a day when the great issues where matters of everyday conversation amongst ordinary people. Farmers and shop keepers traveled by horseback for days to attend the Lincoln Douglas debates. The Federalist papers were the subject of bar room brawls.
Today, face it, the average citizen is an ignorant ass. I realized this during the first "oil crisis" when a poll revealed that about 3/4 of the population believed the oil crisis was "phony" and the most common reason given was that "everyone knows you can always manufacture more crude oil."
Any system that asks a candidate to appeal to the ignorant masses or any segment thereof is going to produce people who talk like nitwits because their audience is composed of nitwits.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 05:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 05:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-06 08:24 am (UTC)The problems arise from the fact that there can only be one executive, and one person can never be truly representative of the wishes of the people. By making the executive the leader of the legislative body, and a precariously placed leader at that, the Westminster system deals with that problem. We lose the flexibility and cross party bargaining that American style legislatures can effect though, but I don't think its too terrible a loss.
A random idea I've been thinking about recently involves selecting the ruling council in a similar manner to jury selection. Every term say three times the number of names as councilors is pulled out of a list of the adult population and published. In the week that follows anyone on the list can apply for exemption, which should not be granted nearly as easily as it is for jury duty, and the rest of the population have an opportunity to file petitions against the potentials, with the number required to get rid of somebody probably about 400 in my city of 400,000. At the end of the week the first however many names remain become politicians, whether they want to or not, it being a civic duty and all.
The other idea I've seen that appealed was to have government consist entirely in a number of bureaucracies, with randomly selected oversight committees, and occasionaly referenda when something new comes up. This of course would only work with a one world government, which is probably a bit of a pipe dream. The main reason I like this is that I find bureaucracy aesthetically pleasing, but I believe I'm in the minority on that point.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-06 03:16 pm (UTC)No. But they are what we deserve.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 05:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 05:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-06 09:48 pm (UTC)Sorry the analytical processor is trying to make me write, I am fighting back.
OK shiny happy brain go!
Cool idea it is good to see people thinking about the electorate.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 05:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-06 09:48 pm (UTC)What if after the 75% approval process, there were multiple follow up levels. I mean to initial candidates would come from a pool of all interested, but could successive stages pair those down into a group of say four to choose from in a national vote. Not the usual party system, but a federal funded program, that relied heavily on routine televised debates, a tour around the country as a group, and predesignated infomercial time to present your platform... with all candidates forbidden to spend money on additional campaigning.
With the current dyad, it a choice between Mr. "oozing charm from every pore he oiled his way across the floor" or Mr. "they misunderestimated me".... It will be embarrassing to have to admit that I voted for the smarmy guy, but how could I vote for anyone as obviously stupid as Bush?
Follow the link for more fun with George W and the candidate round up song.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 05:33 am (UTC)