politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
sortition.
Absolutely fucking not. Random assignment is ridiculous. All it'd take is one or two bad assignments with crackpots to ruin the country forever. Imagine if enough Trumpers got assigned by chance. We'd have a dictator the next day.
Not to mention no one would ever trust if their methods were accurate as everyone would call foul.
And with people who are mostly not wealthy and only serve a single term the ability to totally bribe would be a foregone conclusion.
Don’t we basically use this process for juries?
Even that's not purely random. Voir dire is a process to ensure the jury is selected intentionally by prosecution and defense attorneys (ideally to have an unbiased and effective jury).
Granted, but it’s miles away from having professional narcissists who campaign and accept lobbying money to be full time jurors for 30 years.
There's lots of problems with the current system, I agree, but unless we can have a body of people who can act as national fiduciaries to "voir dire" the randomly selected politicians, I don't see how it would offer any improvements over the current system.
It would get money out of the initial political process, but it wouldn't necessarily create substantively better lawmakers.
It would come with a different set of problems, but they don't seem any more difficult than those we already have. Not that it matters today, it's perhaps more of a concern for some future society that has the courage to devote itself to democracy.
Oh. You're one of those people. Nobody here is interested in your accelerationist bullshit.
I'm just a passing pleb who apparently wandered into the angry part of lemmy. Sorry to intrude.
If I mischaracterized you, then I apologize, but accelerationists and naive anarcho-libertarians have been trolling Politics with points exactly like yours for weeks. They think allowing fascism to happen now is the only (or at least inevitable) solution, and they imagine some future revolution will allow a better society to rise from the ashes, some "future democracy" for those "courageous enough" to make some kind of ideological stand now.
Nevermind they have no plan to get there except "burn it all down," and there's no way to know with any level of certainly what comes after that.
Oh right. I just meant it's a pretty far-out idea and not really relevant to practical politics right now, interesting though it may be. Thanks for the explanation.
Again, apologies. Hope you have a lovely day.
He said nothing about allowing fascism to happen now, though.
People who support an unsustainable status quo tend to interpret all discontent as support for the worst outcome.
The bad-faith commentors rarely do, until pressed. This one appears to have been commenting in good faith, however.
I like sortition, and I appreciate you bringing it up. If a position has so much power a random person could screw things up that bad, that position of power needs eliminated or divided.