Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Funny peculiar.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                         

Draft First Term Representatives

Have elections to keep candidates, but not to replace them
  (+7, -1)
(+7, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

Whenever a spot of a representative opens, a lottery is run among all citizens in the district, and whoever is chosen must serve unless that person declines -- provisions are made to handle several refusals.

Once that representative serves, he must survive periodical (same periodicity as election cycle today) recall elections. But if he loses (or resigns), the lottery is run again.

The idea is to depoliticize serving in Congress to a large extent. If most people think you do a good job, you do get reelected. If you don't, you get recalled, and someone else gets a chance. But while special interests may still be interested in getting a given representative out, they cannot be assured that a replacement will do them good.

theircompetitor, Feb 07 2004

Experimentalist faction...... http://www.larryniv...uppeteer/puppol.htm
Larry Niven politics [normzone, Nov 12 2004]

[link]






       //recall elections// You live in Kahlifooniaah?   

       But this sytem would certainy save some money!
kbecker, Feb 07 2004
  

       I'm waiting for all the naysayers to tell us why this is a bad idea....but while I wait, let me assure you, I'm ready to try conscription for political office if it gives us something different than what we've got.   

       Let them eat croissants....
normzone, Feb 07 2004
  

       no, NJ -- though I would have certainly voted for the recall.
theircompetitor, Feb 07 2004
  

       normzone -- I think the typical issues would have to do with the "power staff" -- the same issue that was raised for term limits. I think that can be addressed -- you wouldn't need as much staff anyway if you didn't need to spend all your time getting money.   

       The other issue is probably skill: don't want the construction worker drafting the energy bill. F that, elitist thinking.   

       And one other is of course politics -- how do you get a guy that wants what you want, whether it's abortion rights or right to life, etc. But I think if you have district based processing, it'll come out close anyway. Plus so much of that is just posturing anyway.
theircompetitor, Feb 07 2004
  

       and thanks for the thought, kbecker.
theircompetitor, Feb 07 2004
  

       I don't think I could lose.   

       Currently, about 25% of what I earn is taken from me, without my consent, and spent in a manner in which I have no say.   

       This is regardless of which of our two parties is in power, and regardless of the candidate.   

       At least this would eliminate the pre-planned banditry...spontaneous banditry might be less effective.
normzone, Feb 07 2004
  

       This idea takes the reasoning behind term limits to its logical conclusion: that skill and experience do not matter in government.
bungston, Feb 08 2004
  

       People would keep reelecting the same person just to avoid the lottery coming around again.
waugsqueke, Feb 08 2004
  

       bungston: currently, the skill (if any) that's tested is campaigning, not governing. Other then seeing the commercials, most people don't know what the representatives are doing/   

       waugs: I don't think so -- people get energized when they think they're not getting their money's worth. If pay is as good as it is now, this is no jury duty to be avoided. And many good people would have a chance to serve who would never actually run because of what it entails now.
theircompetitor, Feb 08 2004
  

       have a croissant for your sunday brunch
buddymatt, Feb 08 2004
  

       What happens when you draft a radical student, who goes and nationalises everything, or a batty old lady who gives 30% of your tax money to her cats?   

       You can probably think of a lot of people you wouldn't want in charge of anything.
RobertKidney, Feb 22 2004
  

       RobertKidney -- Clearly you'd have background checks in terms of criminality -- but do you think there are no bad apples in the House right now? No radicals whatsoever?
theircompetitor, Feb 22 2004
  

       How many seats do you have in the US? In the UK there are about 600, so I supose the chance of there being a majority of crazy people is slim, but it still could happen.   

       Again I don't have a lot of knowledge about the US, but in the UK a politician also has a duty to help their constituents with their problems. I don't think there are any real rules about what they have to deal with, but at least they want the job, and will hopefully work at it, especially if they want to win again next time.   

       I don't think its something I'd be good at, although I would feel obliged to have a go. There would also be people who would resent the job, and not work at all.
RobertKidney, Feb 22 2004
  

       Hmm -- people certainly resent jury duty -- but I don't think many would resent a 6 figure salary and a chance to make a difference.   

       They would of course still be from their district and thus have to represent locals well if they want to be reelected.
theircompetitor, Feb 22 2004
  

       But if they don't want to be re-elected for some reason, (I don't know, maybe: They are planning to move to another country, they are working on a groundbreaking piece of research, they earn more in their real job, they dislike dealing with people, they want to run for president, they really enjoy their job, they want to be at home looking after their kids...), then they have no incentive to do anything but to take the money and not do the work.
RobertKidney, Feb 23 2004
  

       For a second, I thought you were talking about our current representatives :)
theircompetitor, Feb 23 2004
  

       Heh.   

       Maybe you should think up an idea for a way of selecting people who actually want to do the work.
RobertKidney, Feb 24 2004
  

       //Currently, about 25% of what I earn is taken from me, without my consent, and spent in a manner in which I have no say. //   

       [Normzone], what we earn is mostly due to the society we live in, rather than to our own efforts. I'm not saying you don't work for your money, but if you happened to live in some shit-hole village in the third world you wouldn't make a fraction of what you do living in a developed country. And that society is maintained by your taxes. Since society only takes a quarter of what you earn, and yet probably 99% of your earnings are due to society (after all, who paid for your education) it seems like you're getting a pretty good deal.

And another thing! What do you mean you have no say in how it's spent? If you live in UK, US, or OZ, you have exactly the same say as every other citizen. How much say do you want?
spacemoggy, Jun 06 2004
  

       [spacemoggy]: That argument is a bit circular. 'Society' (actually the government) only pays for my, and other people's, education (and healthcare [insert wry smile here - I live in UK], and so on) *because* it's taking 40% of what I earn. If I could be allowed to keep more of what I earn, I could decide how to spend it.
angel, Nov 12 2004
  

       If you were allowed to keep less of what you earned, you still wouldn't be worse off than someone in the shit-hole village spacemoggy's referring to.
yabba do yabba dabba, Nov 12 2004
  

       Without knowing the specifics of [spacemoggy]'s hypothetical third-worlder it's hard to know, but I would suspect that he's not paying 40% tax. In any event, to say that "99% of your earnings are due to society" is meaningless; you could as easily say that 100% of my earnings are due to society because the people who make up 'society' are customers for the product of my labour, and without them I'd be out of a job.
angel, Nov 12 2004
  

       Get off your high horse. It's hard to know, but nowhere near hard to imagine.
yabba do yabba dabba, Nov 12 2004
  

       I didn't even notice the "99% due to society" and the rational therein. That's just silly.
theircompetitor, Nov 12 2004
  

       Calm down, guys, please!
[yabba], no matter how much tax you or I pay, out notional third-worlder will be no better off. What I earn and what he earns *in dollar terms* are irrelevant because the arenas in which we live are so different.
angel, Nov 12 2004
  

       [Theircompetitor] and I are in agreement - [99% due to society" and the rational therein. That's just silly] Mark it on your calendars.   

       [you mean you have no say in how it's spent? If you live in UK, US, or OZ, you have exactly the same say as every other citizen].   

       My point exactly, [spacemoggy]. A politician can be hired to do someone's bidding, but not by a person of my humble means. The token representation I receive is a joke, only useful if my needs would make good press for said politicrat.   

       Back to the original premise of this idea. I think it represents a frustration with the system as it is, and that's understandable. Our system is largely fixed, with little room for experimentation. As a person who gets paid to experiment, and who sees the value of experimentation, I share that frustration.   

       Consider me neither liberal nor conservative, Democrat or Republican, but a member of the Experimentalist faction.
normzone, Nov 12 2004
  

       Would the addition of a lower case "r" really make much difference?
bristolz, Nov 12 2004
  

       norm, I'd join that party. Although I'm a little worried about the name, we'd be likely to get a bunch of dope-heads...
RayfordSteele, Nov 13 2004
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle