Im saying out SOCIETY brings out the worst in individuals and all you're proposing is shuffling the cards a bit faster, I dont see a benefit.I'm confused as to why you think this. Do you think that most people are, by nature, power-hungry jackasses and that electing our representatives enables us to choose people who aren't? Or are you saying that there is something about government itself that brings out the worst tendencies in its officials?
Im sorry, have you taken a look around here recently?They would have no partisan animosity that would prevent them from compromising with others of different ideologies
Except what one person feels is right and what is the best choice is not always the same thing.they would have no worries about reelection and would be able to focus on doing what they felt was right
What do you do if you get a Neo-Nazi in this committee or a radical Communist?
The entire track would be the group infighting with everyone struggling to do what they thought was right in spite of what others thought. Most everyone thinks THEY are right and everyone else "just doesnt get it".
But just long enough to be bought. And I submit it would be MUCH easier to buy them.they would not be in office long enough to establish a culture of corruption
Except then you run into problems with partisan drawing of lines within the group on ideological grounds AND you push other people from other ideologies out who might have good ideas.Well that's OK. If those two political categories are broad enough that they encompass most Americans, then a random sampling of the people SHOULD mostly draw from those two categories. So for example, if you had a Senate of 100 random people, you might get 48 Democrats, 48 Republicans, 3 true independents, and 1 Libertarian or Green.
Im saying people will scream at another person over the wrong flavor of coffee, tolerance and patience is not a trait humanity is renowned for.Are you saying that the American public wants to start a food fight at the first disagreement?
Even more of a reason NOT to give them the reins. Do you want the pilot of your aircraft to be ambivalent towards landing safely or operating the plane?Most people don't really know or care that much about politics, and have (at most) mild feelings about politics based on what they see in the news.
Except the problem is that the chances of your random sample being complete idiots goes up the bigger your sample is. I dont go to the cute girl at the grocery store for foreign policy tips and I dont talk to my Congressman about his thoughts regarding the viability of PC gaming into the future. I dont do this because these people are not equipped to handle that sort of discussion.For precisely that reason: Suppose that the voters of a certain state want Policy X to become a law. A random sample of people is chosen from that state, and sure enough, they implement Policy X immediately, to the applause of the public. Two years go by, and it becomes clear that Policy X has been a complete disaster for the state. Most people have changed their minds...but the random sample that implemented it has not, perhaps because they are personally attached to the work, or because they don't want to admit that they were wrong. Mercifully, a new random sample of the people is chosen, and repeals Policy X to the applause of the public.
People who are un-educated or under-educated should not be making decisions regarding policy. The Socialist in me cringes to think that I would advocate that certain people be kept away from the political process...but this is not a video game where anyone can pick it up after a few minutes of screwing around with it and if you completely suck, it's ok, you still had fun.
Again, someone can become corrupt in the time it takes to write a check and people will still form grudges based on ideological differences. It happens on here all the time, we ALL engage in it.Furthermore, switching it up every couple years ensures that people aren't in office long enough to become corrupt, form grudges against their colleagues, become out of touch with their constituents, or establish any political culture to speak of.
Isnt this supposed to be an IMPROVEMENT over our current system, not just replacing one broke with another?Nothing...but neither does our current system. See: Jim Bunning, Daniel Akaka, Ted Stevens. As long as such people are only a small proportion of the governing body, they won't be able to inflict any damage.