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
Apply directly to forehead.

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,


       

Shuffle Republic

Vote in someone else's election
  (+1)
(+1)
  [vote for,
against]

It's too easy for politicians to remain in office. All they have to do is convince their constituents that they're fighting for them, whether or not they actually are. And even assuming they are, the fighting part is troubling. After all, if you're winning, somebody else must be losing.

The “obvious” solution is to have all voters elect candidates from regions except their own, swapping them randomly at each election. So you might vote for the state comptroller of Florida one year, and a Senate seat from Nebraska the next. But that would negate any concept of constituency, since you never know who you're supposed to be representing.

So let's tweak that a bit. As each election cycle comes, a random number between, say, 1 and 10 is drawn for each candidate. An 8 or lower means candidates are voted on by citizens within their locality, as usual. On drawing a 9 or 10, however, that race enters the “pool”. Once all numbers are drawn, pooled races are distributed randomly to regions that were selected to be in the pool.

This way, you're *probably* going to be re-elected by your primary constituency. But you might not be, and that should give you something to think about the next time you try to pass legislation that only benefits the members of the regional Pork Barrel Producers' Association.

ytk, Jul 03 2014

[link]






       I have often wondered what might happen if we were to change our representation style to simply have some positions elected and be 'at large' instead of held by committee members from X or Y state.   

       One downside of your system, information about whom you're voting for would be difficult to come by though and so misinformation is likely to spread, not that it already doesn't...
RayfordSteele, Jul 03 2014
  

       I think this is an interesting concept, but unfortunately I'm not sure it's a solution to the problems of corruption and underhandedness, that exists in all goverenments.
blissmiss, Jul 03 2014
  

       Sorry, but the biggest corruption the USA currently faces is at the federal level.   

       Large corps are the only ones big enough to afford the senator's rental prices, and they know that they get more ROI investing in bribes at the federal level.   

       Having the senators less beholden to their constituency would not make them more beholden to society at large (which already comes in a distant 3rd place), but would just strengthen the first place influence: lobbyists.
sophocles, Jul 04 2014
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

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