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
Normal isn't your first language, is it?

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,


                       

jury, but for law making

like a jury, but for actual lawmaking
  (+3, -1)
(+3, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

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.

mofosyne, May 26 2014

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.
RayfordSteele, May 26 2014
  

       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"
mofosyne, Aug 19 2014
  

       So: more direct democracy. A reasonable but boring notion in some respects, but a concept with new legs thanks to the internet.
bungston, Aug 19 2014
  

       //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?
Skewed, Aug 19 2014
  

       //may be partly baked//   

       Nope.. on reflection I think we can probably claim it's fully baked, not new anyway :)   

       <linky>
Skewed, Aug 19 2014
  

       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)?
mofosyne, Aug 19 2014
  

       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.   

       A lottery perhaps.   

       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
Skewed, Aug 19 2014
  

       //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.
Skewed, Aug 19 2014
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

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