View Poll Results: What do you think of allowing a random sample of citizens to govern?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • I like it

    6 17.65%
  • I don't like it

    19 55.88%
  • I'm neutral

    9 26.47%
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 67

Thread: Deliberative Democracy

  1. #41
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Deliberative Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    I'm not saying we need to have an educational requirement, I'm saying that a representative sample will, by definition, have an awful lot of people with a sub-par education in it.
    It's so easy to compare it to juries that I just don't think it would be a problem. If one used the Registered Voters list, which is what jury selection does, I think it might make sub-par education less likely.

    I agree. My concern is that if we're going to replace our current system, which is vulnerable to remote automated hacks, with a system which relies on random selection, we'd need a random selection process that we could be reasonably certain would be more secure than what we have now.
    I'm not sure which system you're talking about that we have NOW is vulnerable to remote automated hacks. If there's a way to hack the system, someone will find it. But you're right, the system would have to be reasonably secure. And tampering with it a Federal crime subject to life imprisonment for all involved.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  2. #42
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Deliberative Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    It's so easy to compare it to juries that I just don't think it would be a problem. If one used the Registered Voters list, which is what jury selection does, I think it might make sub-par education less likely.
    Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, I dunno about that. At this point, you can register to vote when you're doing any of a number of other things, so it's not like registered voters made an especial effort to get registered.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I'm not sure which system you're talking about that we have NOW is vulnerable to remote automated hacks.
    Many of the electronic voting systems we use across the USA. It has been demonstrated to a number of state-level committees that it is alarmingly easy to remotely hack a number of the systems in use and alter the results without being detected.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  3. #43
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Deliberative Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, I dunno about that. At this point, you can register to vote when you're doing any of a number of other things, so it's not like registered voters made an especial effort to get registered.
    Okay, to satisfy YOUR concern that even voters could be embeciles, then a random selection process and an IQ test that shows at least 'average,' whatever that is. You can't exclude people based on whether or not they've had a college education or whatever, in my opinion. A college education is a poor predictor of practical intelligence.

    Many of the electronic voting systems we use across the USA. It has been demonstrated to a number of state-level committees that it is alarmingly easy to remotely hack a number of the systems in use and alter the results without being detected.
    I see. Well, there must be a way.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  4. #44
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Deliberative Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Okay, to satisfy YOUR concern that even voters could be embeciles, then a random selection process and an IQ test that shows at least 'average,' whatever that is. You can't exclude people based on whether or not they've had a college education or whatever, in my opinion. A college education is a poor predictor of practical intelligence.
    I'd be okay with that. I just don't want to be represented by an illiterate fool is all.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I see. Well, there must be a way.
    Well, if we're assuming a reasonable IQ test I guess we can assume a reasonable selection process too.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  5. #45
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Deliberative Democracy

    I made a thread about this a little while ago. I sort of liked the idea then, and still do, with a caveat: if it is ever implemented, it should be alongside actual representative democracy to keep it in check. A bicameral thing: one house would be a random sample of the population, and one would be elected politicians. They would balance out each other's faults.

    At least it sounds good in theory. I don't know how it would actually work out in real life.

  6. #46
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

    Re: Deliberative Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    I'm very much against term limits on the Supreme Court. I like that the Justices has the autonomy to make their rulings. If you put a term on the tenure of the Supreme Court, Justices will be more likely to make biased rulings that they can then profit from after their term is over. By having a lifetime term, there is less of a chance for corruption.

    However, I would agree that we need much more scrutiny when it comes to their appointments.
    I think we need to stop making it a political appointment. Right now, the party in power gets to load the court with justices who are going to vote their way. That interferes with checks and balances. We need to remove the influence of the executive branch entirely. When a justice dies or retires, there's a list of judges who are already vetted and qualified and the top 10 are randomized and one is picked by computer. Their political lean, whatever it might be, is irrelevant to the decision process. They take over on the Supreme Court.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  7. #47
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Deliberative Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I have absolutely no idea what makes you believe that. There isn't any evidence that suggests regular people are more likely to take bribes than wealthy people.
    I've explained this several times already.

    Term limits would be an improvement as well. However, this would be better because with term limits you'd still have professional politicians with partisan grudges. It would be better than we have now, but still not as good as a deliberative democracy ruled by a random sample of people.
    I dont know how many times I can repeat this. People are just as partisan as politicians.

    No. They aren't. Most people (if they have any political opinions at all) have opinions like these: "I'm pro-choice" or "Obama should do more to help the economy." That is FAR more common than "I'm opposed to cap-and-trade because of X, Y, and Z."
    And good luck trying to dislodge them from those ideas.

    If you really think that the average person is a rabid partisan that would preclude compromise (or even has firm preexisting political convictions), I suggest you spend more time off this message board.
    I think that MANY people are rabidly partisan, I think MOST people are partisan.

    The Constitution.

    Do you think that the majority of people want something like that? Because if they do, they can elect representatives who favor that. If you'd care to critique this system of governance, I suggest you limit yourself to criticisms that don't ALSO apply just as much or more to the current system of governance.
    A piece of paper is going to stop them? Really? How is that going to work? I'm not relying on devotion to an ideal to stop people from being jerks. I want to know what specifically can you do to dislodge one of these citizens groups should you happen to get a crop of people who thinks Adolf Hitler was just swell and wants to give his program another shot.

    Your rant about socialism sounds to me like what you actually dislike is that this system won't make everyone suddenly agree with you on the issues. No system of government (other than a dictatorship) can fix that problem. You have to convince people that your views are correct just like everyone else.
    My concern is that people who AREN'T as adept at convincing other people will be pushed aside and these groups will be dominated by one or two persuasive individuals.

    They aren't anywhere close to a majority of the population.
    They dont have to be. Statistics isnt a guarantee, you can still accidentally end up with a "random sample" that includes an overwhelming majority of one particular group. It's less statistically likely, but still possible.

    And I said that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence to support that. Every social experiment I've ever seen on corruption has concluded that there is either no relationship between dishonesty and income, or that wealthy people are actually MORE likely to be dishonest.
    Are you deaf or just ignoring what I'm saying? I'm saying that if I want to bribe someone on this citizen's committee, it'll be easier to do so because I spend less money doing it, they aren't familiar with basic politics, and they get cycled often which means they dont get used to big payouts and I get more chances to influence more people.

    Only if you have "professional" politicians who are deeply entrenched and want to make sure they get their own. Furthermore, this system need not be applied nationwide. It would be better to start it out at a state or local level.
    Even if you're only talking about legislation for a single city, there is a HUGE difference between finding common ground in a friendly discussion and trying to work out actual legislation.


    And career politicians are not Jesus incarnate. Now did you actually want to discuss the topic, or shall we just make asinine straw men comments henceforth?
    My irony meter just cracked in half.

    I already explained to you the ways in which a random sampling of the population would be better than the current system, and none of them had anything to do with people being a magically benevolent force.
    You think that having Joe Average American in control of politics is a good idea and you are relying on statistics to give you an average. The problem is that statistics is not a guarantee that you'll get what you want.

    And there is that veiled criticism again: "This system of governance is bad because it won't make everyone agree with MY political ideology." If you're the only socialist in a random sample of the population, it's probably because socialism isn't a very prevalent ideology amongst the population. That doesn't mean you're right or wrong, it just means that your ideas have to endure the same scrutiny as everyone else's. Convince others to adopt your ideas and they will be reflected in the random sample of the population.
    Then this is basically organized mob rule. It shouldn't matter WHERE an idea comes from if it's a good idea. If you really want political solutions, dont rely on a system where majority rules.

    How many people do you think fall into this category? Let's look at the numbers. Only 57% even turned out for the last presidential election. Now let's estimate that two-thirds of them knew which party they'd be voting for regardless of the candidates/issues (roughly 40% of the population). Now let's assume that of those partisans, fully HALF of them are rabid nutcases unwilling to compromise with the opposing party on anything. Even with these incredibly dim assumptions of humanity, that's still only 20% of the population. The sane 80% of the random sample could just ignore them.
    Except that isnt what a Democracy is about. Democracy means everyone's voice has equal weight, you dont get to push people aside just because they arent the majority.

    By giving them access to any experts they wanted, especially experts with opposing points of view.
    People have access to that now and most of them still cant make good choices.

    You'll get no argument from me there; most people are horribly uninformed and shouldn't be voting. But that's just because they haven't been educated on political issues. This is understandable; most political issues don't affect their day-to-day lives and their individual vote counts for very little, so for many people it simply isn't worth the time investment to learn about politics and form in-depth opinions. But if you take 100 of those same people and give them the power to actually make decisions, suddenly it's worth their time to learn about it. If you give them access to the experts, they'll be fine.
    Again, you are essentially proposing a form of organized mob rule. The biggest group will have the biggest voice so get it's way. You will have a true dictatorship of the majority.

    Having access to experts doesnt mean people will heed their advice.

    Your view that the average American is more partisan than the average elected official is ridiculous. Do you really believe that the average voters are clamoring for more partisanship from Congress?
    I think the average American is too partisan to be willing to work with people they disagree with on issues that will effect the entire nation.

    Sounds to me like you are projecting your own flaws onto everyone else. Most people, when thrown into a room together and told to solve a problem, will give it their best shot and WILL work together. And if they can help others, they'll feel very proud.
    You're accusing a Socialist of not being willing to work with others?

    Most people are disinterested only because they don't have any power, so there isn't really any benefit to caring. If they were actually in charge, they'd suddenly care a lot more. And if they really just didn't give a damn, they wouldn't be under any obligation to serve.
    So you'd have a group of twenty or fifty people that cared and the rest of the population that didnt. How is that an improvement?

    I have no problem with a technocracy other than it isn't representative of the public and has no checks to prevent corruption.
    Why does it have to represent the people and checks can be added.
    I'm Done

    See my last post

  8. #48
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Deliberative Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite View Post
    I dont know how many times I can repeat this. People are just as partisan as politicians.
    I don't know how many times I can repeat this. No they aren't, and if you actually believe that (which I highly doubt) then you REALLY need to spend more time off this message board.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    And good luck trying to dislodge them from those ideas.
    Who said anything about dislodging them from their ideas? Some people will have preexisting opinions, some won't. Educate them all on the issues and give them access to experts, and people may come to different conclusions about the best policies. And that's OK, that's how a legislature SHOULD operate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    I think that MANY people are rabidly partisan, I think MOST people are partisan.
    And I think you must have never interacted with any actual human beings outside of political forums.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    A piece of paper is going to stop them? Really? How is that going to work? I'm not relying on devotion to an ideal to stop people from being jerks. I want to know what specifically can you do to dislodge one of these citizens groups should you happen to get a crop of people who thinks Adolf Hitler was just swell and wants to give his program another shot.
    Exactly the same checks and balances that prevent our CURRENT legislatures from doing that: an executive and an independent judiciary.

    You're whole line of reasoning that you might just "happen to get" a crop of people who believe that shows a massive ignorance of statistics. If you have a sufficiently large random sample of the population, that simply will not happen unless that is actually what a lot of the population believes. And if that were the case, they could just elect congressmen to implement that agenda anyway, which makes your criticism a moot point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    My concern is that people who AREN'T as adept at convincing other people will be pushed aside and these groups will be dominated by one or two persuasive individuals.
    Well that's the way politics works. Deal with it. Your ideas aren't special, you have to convince others that you're right. If you don't have a convincing spokesman for your ideology, find one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    They dont have to be. Statistics isnt a guarantee, you can still accidentally end up with a "random sample" that includes an overwhelming majority of one particular group. It's less statistically likely, but still possible.
    This is far, far less likely than the chances that you'll get an elected legislature that includes a disproportionate number of one ideology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    Are you deaf or just ignoring what I'm saying? I'm saying that if I want to bribe someone on this citizen's committee, it'll be easier to do so because I spend less money doing it, they aren't familiar with basic politics, and they get cycled often which means they dont get used to big payouts and I get more chances to influence more people.
    You can repeat this all you want, but unless you actually have some evidence that people with lower incomes are more likely to accept bribes just because they need the money (despite the fact that I never suggested we reduce the compensation for our legislatures ANYWAY), I'm just going to ignore it from now on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    Even if you're only talking about legislation for a single city, there is a HUGE difference between finding common ground in a friendly discussion and trying to work out actual legislation.
    And this is a problem unique to this particular political system...why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    You think that having Joe Average American in control of politics is a good idea
    No, I think having Joe Average American in control of politics - after having been educated on the issues, given access to all the information he needs, and asked to do his patriotic duty and serve the public - is a good idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    and you are relying on statistics to give you an average. The problem is that statistics is not a guarantee that you'll get what you want.
    It's about as close to a guarantee as any political system can give you. Certainly much closer to a guarantee that it will accurately reflect public opinion than what we have now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    Then this is basically organized mob rule. It shouldn't matter WHERE an idea comes from if it's a good idea. If you really want political solutions, dont rely on a system where majority rules.
    And once again you've leveled a criticism that isn't unique to this political system and applies to virtually EVERY political system. Except for maybe North Korea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    Except that isnt what a Democracy is about. Democracy means everyone's voice has equal weight, you dont get to push people aside just because they arent the majority.
    As long as you aren't violating their rights or the Constitution, that is precisely what you get to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    People have access to that now and most of them still cant make good choices.
    No. Most people don't care about having access to the experts, because they don't have any power. And I don't blame them. Why SHOULD they care that deeply if they can't influence anything anyway? If you put those same people in a position of power, suddenly they have an incentive to actually listen to the experts and do well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    Again, you are essentially proposing a form of organized mob rule. The biggest group will have the biggest voice so get it's way. You will have a true dictatorship of the majority.
    If by "true dictatorship of the majority," you mean "a system where a majority of public opinion rules, as long as it doesn't violate anyone's rights or the Constitution, and subject to the same checks and balances that we currently have," then you are correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    Having access to experts doesnt mean people will heed their advice.
    The idea is that people would form their own conclusions after hearing differing opinions from the experts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    I think the average American is too partisan to be willing to work with people they disagree with on issues that will effect the entire nation.
    And once again, I think you need to get out more. Or possibly find some friends who DON'T scream at one another over politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    You're accusing a Socialist of not being willing to work with others?
    Yes, that is exactly right. You are projecting your own flaws onto the rest of humanity. Most people want to help others. Most people (at least in the aggregate) can make a reasonable decision when given access to information by experts. Most people aren't insane partisans who refuse to work with people of other ideologies. And most people aren't going to take bribes just because they're middle or lower class. If you disagree, I can only conclude that because those things don't apply to yourself, you assume that they aren't true of anyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    So you'd have a group of twenty or fifty people that cared and the rest of the population that didnt. How is that an improvement?
    If you had bothered to read what I suggested the benefits of this system would be, you wouldn't find anything like "This system would suddenly make the general population care more about politics."

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    Why does it have to represent the people and checks can be added.
    Because the experts, however well-intentioned, have a culture of their own that may not be exactly the same as the public's. They are more likely to become out of touch with the problems facing ordinary people.

    With a citizen-run government, this wouldn't be a problem. Worried about unemployment? 10% of the committee would've been unemployed before taking office (and many more would have a family member who was). Worried about health care premiums? The lower and middle-class members of the committee know exactly how you feel. Worried about the quality of our schools? So does every parent on the committee. Experts might mean well, but if they have spent decades in academia, government, or the corporate world earning large salaries, they are simply less likely to understand what issues the public considers most important.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 09-06-10 at 07:17 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #49
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Deliberative Democracy

    Ok, instead of defending your theory, you're essentially just repeating "No, you're ideas are wrong, mine are right!"

    You dont defend a theory by attacking the people who are making you defend your ideas.
    I'm Done

    See my last post

  10. #50
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Deliberative Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite View Post
    Ok, instead of defending your theory
    Actually I explained why every single one of your criticisms is unsound, line by line. To which you didn't bother to respond. Not that I blame you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite
    You dont defend a theory by attacking the people who are making you defend your ideas.
    Nope. You defend it by explaining why every single one of the criticisms is unsound, line by line.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •