If you have a large enough parliamentary body whose members are chosen randomly, then having a couple of nutjobs on it, also maybe one or two murderers or rapists, would not take away from the entire body being able to function and make sensible decisions.
I'd argue the current Western democratic systems based on elections lead to a stark overrepresentation of criminals and assholes in government.
You kidding? Lots of politicians now are on way more than just meth. Sortition with a recall vote and the ability for those selected to recuse themselves would be a much more representative sample than the politicians we have now.
I mean the states isnt the only place that has folks who are out in the wilderness. in dublin par examplé, if you go north of the river that divides the city in half on the main street you will encounter a herion user in under 30 seconds
If you’re going to have 2 chambers of parliament, you may as well have one be elected via districts (with ranked choice) and the other be proportional representation
Politics and Hollywood. The nepo tradition being kept alive. We need change, not the entrenched establishment of old people telling their young people how to game the system.
Why Sanders didn't endorse his brother when he ran for office. Sanders hates nepotism. Fucking Hollywood is full of it. We don't need it in our politics.
Bill Clinton was a horrible president, balanced the budget on the backs of the working poor and more "tough on crime" neoliberal cut taxes for the rich and corpos, sold us NAFTA by telling us our manufacured goods would cost less and Mexican standards of living would improve and both were lies. And he threw a vulnerable barely out of college aged kid under the bus for one of many dalliances.
Oh I know! When I said he balanced the budget on the backs of the working poor, cutting social safety net is exactly what I meant and then some. And let's not pretend Obama was better. He was better on idpol but once again, he was socially ledt and economically right. Corporations and ultrawealthy got tax cuts at the expense of the poor.
We can do better, and politicians can do better; but they won't until we make them do it.
We need a constitutional amendment forbidding members of one's immediate family from running for office above a certain level. Spouses, children, and siblings are all right out. Exactly where the cutoff is is open to discussion, but presidents and members of congress should be forbidden from trading on their family name for elected office.
42 Comments
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz · 114 pts · 250d
If there is anything I am sure about it is that the children of politicians are largely useless.
Statistically it is a far superior choice to literally pick a random person off the street.
hypna@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 250d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
youngGoku@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 250d
This would not work in USA haha. We'd inevitability have method heads getting elected yo office at some point.
I love the idea though. Maybe we could implement it at some point with some minimum qualifications or something.
Bonifratz@piefed.zip · 9 pts · 249d
If you have a large enough parliamentary body whose members are chosen randomly, then having a couple of nutjobs on it, also maybe one or two murderers or rapists, would not take away from the entire body being able to function and make sensible decisions.
I'd argue the current Western democratic systems based on elections lead to a stark overrepresentation of criminals and assholes in government.
ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 249d
The electoral system we currently have is not democratic. Sortition/aleatoric is the only real form of democracy.
Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 250d
George Bush Jr was a coke head so close enough
Schmoo@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 249d
You kidding? Lots of politicians now are on way more than just meth. Sortition with a recall vote and the ability for those selected to recuse themselves would be a much more representative sample than the politicians we have now.
sauerkrautsaul@lemmus.org · 4 pts · 250d
I mean the states isnt the only place that has folks who are out in the wilderness. in dublin par examplé, if you go north of the river that divides the city in half on the main street you will encounter a herion user in under 30 seconds
fedupwithbureaucracy@lemmy.world · 50 pts · 250d
Angus King III? Oh, the person whose father voted to kill tens of millions of people by voting to take away their healthcare? Automatic NOPE!
Jumbie@lemmy.zip · 47 pts · 250d
Politics was never supposed to be a nepotist endeavor.
gdog05@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 250d
John Quincy Adams agrees.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 250d
So does G W Bush.
altphoto@lemmy.today · 26 pts · 250d
I propose we don't vote for legacy politicians. Go live in the world your parents chose for all of us.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · 24 pts · 250d
This is why you need mail in voting. You get a pamphlet of their views and time to really look at the candidates.
velindora@lemmy.cafe · 21 pts · 250d
Mail in, ranked, no electoral college, no districts.
First_Thunder@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 250d
If you’re going to have 2 chambers of parliament, you may as well have one be elected via districts (with ranked choice) and the other be proportional representation
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 24 pts · 249d
Politics and Hollywood. The nepo tradition being kept alive. We need change, not the entrenched establishment of old people telling their young people how to game the system.
Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 250d
Oh boy, our own House of Lords!
Drusas@fedia.io · 7 pts · 250d
It still blows my mind that that exists in the modern era.
DrFistington@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 250d
It will be easy to vote against them if the names are recognizable
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 20 pts · 250d
American politics has always had a "legacy" problem, among other things.
Fredselfish@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 250d
Why Sanders didn't endorse his brother when he ran for office. Sanders hates nepotism. Fucking Hollywood is full of it. We don't need it in our politics.
Typhoon@lemmy.ca · 18 pts · 250d
They want us to literally vote in monarchy?
RagingRobot@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 250d
We already have been.
VampirePenguin@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 249d
Let's just "jury duty" all of our government. Shit couldn't be worse.
Turret3857@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 248d
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 248d
Have you met average Americans? Fuck that.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 248d
Filter by GPA first then.
VampirePenguin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 248d
As long as we're dreaming, we can dream about an education system that turns out functional adults.
einlander@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 250d
People are trying to make family dynasties.
MehBlah@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 249d
They know a good grift when they see it.
pinheadednightmare@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 250d
Fuck that mess, we need new blood. Same family, same bullshit
pyrinix@kbin.melroy.org · 5 pts · 250d
Maeve@kbin.earth · 5 pts · 250d
Bill Clinton was a horrible president, balanced the budget on the backs of the working poor and more "tough on crime" neoliberal cut taxes for the rich and corpos, sold us NAFTA by telling us our manufacured goods would cost less and Mexican standards of living would improve and both were lies. And he threw a vulnerable barely out of college aged kid under the bus for one of many dalliances.
theneverfox@pawb.social · 5 pts · 249d
You've barely even scratched the surface.
He also destroyed the social safety net, he cut the regulations that caused the 2008 crash and let billionaires buy up the press...
He really just cut all the straps holding our county together. I'm still learning new ways on how he opened us up to the problems we're now facing
Maeve@kbin.earth · 3 pts · 249d
Oh I know! When I said he balanced the budget on the backs of the working poor, cutting social safety net is exactly what I meant and then some. And let's not pretend Obama was better. He was better on idpol but once again, he was socially ledt and economically right. Corporations and ultrawealthy got tax cuts at the expense of the poor.
We can do better, and politicians can do better; but they won't until we make them do it.
theneverfox@pawb.social · 2 pts · 249d
Agreed. It was uniparty bullshit. The neolibs and neocons are basically the same, plus or minus a couple superficial issues
We can't go back to that bullshit. We have the political momentum, we have to vote in progressives
Maeve@kbin.earth · 2 pts · 249d
Define conservative please.
theneverfox@pawb.social · 2 pts · 249d
Lmao wtf, I use swipe typing. I don't know how the fuck progressive turned into conservative
No, I meant progressive. I can define that if you like, but I see where the confusion is lol
Maeve@kbin.earth · 2 pts · 248d
Lol! Thanks so much, I was thoroughly confused.
Sharkticon@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 248d
Bill "Reagan Lite" Clinton really.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 250d
Easy there, cowboy.
pyrinix@kbin.melroy.org · 1 pts · 250d
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 250d
Say what, say what?
GraniteM@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 248d
We need a constitutional amendment forbidding members of one's immediate family from running for office above a certain level. Spouses, children, and siblings are all right out. Exactly where the cutoff is is open to discussion, but presidents and members of congress should be forbidden from trading on their family name for elected office.