Who would support a true democracy at a state level?

[Cleita]

What if every citizen had to do their civic duty once in their lifetime, as a representative in the state legislature, sort of like doing jury duty. You could postpone it until retirement, but then you could put your name in for your preferred party to be selected by lottery to serve for a couple of years, with pay of course.

I would, of course, make it proportional representation of the major parties, you know so many Democrats, so many Republics, so many Greens etc. depending on the numbers of registered voters each time a selection is made. What do you think? Would it work? I know the Native Americans had something similar, a council of elders, who met to make decisions affecting the tribe. I believe women were included too in most of the tribes as equals.

[Tyler Durden]

1. Of course.

It's the best way to make it work.

[Cleita]

2. Thanks for the reply. I supposed the subject isn't important to this forum.

I was hoping for a discussion among those who support social programs as I feel it would be the best way to get change because it removes the campaign contributions factors from selecting representatives.

I know it's an off the wall idea to most and I don't think there is a model in our modern world where this experiment has been tried, which is why I suggested it at a state level first to see how it might work or not.

[Greyhound]

3. I like this idea a lot. I would go even further as I've posted in the past.

A national lottery, or draft if you prefer, based on randomly drawn SS numbers. You get a registered letter stating congratulations you are your districts next Congressional Representative (or Senator, or President, etc.) beginning in (6 months?) and continuing for the next two years (or 4 or 6, whatever the term of office). You will receive the usual pay and benefits and will be replaced at the end of your term by the next winner.

I don't think average citizens could do any worse that the crooks and egomaniacs that currently hold these offices and if there is a complete idiot in office, it's not like we haven't had this in the past and they're only in for one term anyway.

No campaigns, no parties, no factions, just everybody doing the best they can, or not, while they're in, and then they go home and get on with their lives. We'd need a couple of laws to make sure they could go back to their lives, and provide a few classes on how things work since most people are completely clueless as to rules of conduct, etc.

Once your term is finished, you have the option of not participating in future lotteries, or leaving your number in on the off chance that you would be picked again, whichever you want.

Of course, all the laws on bribery and such would remain in force, and a law forbidding former office holders from entering any industry they oversaw or regulated would be required to keep the lobbyists in check. But really, how could they possibly do any worse?

[Cleita]

4. It looks like you have thought this through pretty thoroughly.

The only thing I would add is that representation would reflect the actual demography of that state so that an equal amount of men and women would be selected as well as minorities reflected in the selection as well as parties. This way everyone would have a say.

[Greyhound]

8. That's a good point.

I think that the random blind method of selection would take care of that over time. A little over half of the SSNs belong to women, so we should see women picked a little over half the time, over time. Of course the selections could be skewed in any single drawing, but the law of averages would apply over time. Same with every other demographic, for example you would see more blacks picked from Detroit than Green Bay, more Native Americans from Albuquerque than Indianapolis, and so on.

One thing that just occurred to me, rich people would have next to no chance of being selected except in the few areas that are primarily wealthy say Paradise Valley, AZ and Gross Point, MI, and they'd practically never show up in the Senate and would be even less likely as President.

I do think that it is important to get rid of parties in this process. If we kept them and used that criteria in the selection process it would eliminate much of the randomness and we would see factions form in the various houses and that would lead to influence peddling. I wouldn't eliminate parties from the country per se, they could still function to try to influence the officials and advocate their goals and agendas, but if they are a point of consideration in the selection we'd see a return to a my team, their team, mindset and that is counter to any spirit of cooperation that, hopefully, would evolve.

[westerebus]

9. Jerry Falwell. n/t

My ears are ringing at the thought. Pass the Tylenol and kool aid. Hell just give the kool aid. :yoiks:

[Greyhound]

10. It's true he'd have the same chance of getting in anybody else would

but doesn't he have a much better chance now? And if he did, he'd be pretty much alone, so what could he really do?

And a Noam Chomsky or David Sirota would have the same chance too, and most likely the people would be someone we never heard of and I believe that most people would really just do the best they possibly could, unlike the people that generally seek out the offices now, so I think it's worth the risk.

[westerebus]

12. It's not the one that worries me so much.

Then again maybe it is. The fanatic with a following and no ethical bias to correct from because he has "a calling". The charismatic leader, the prophet, the military hero, the "one".
I'm all for the risk taking even though I live in a purple state, Virginia. The folks who lived here in the 18th century were risk takers too. They pretty much closed out most of the population from the ranks of voters. The civil rights act wasn't that long ago. Even less for Roe v. Wade. Don't get me started on the Pat U Down U got No rights Act.
I want to see equality and human rights held to a standard that makes you proud your an american citizen. It may be a long journey, but look how far we've come.

[Tyler Durden]

5. I'd take it one step more radical though...

NO POLITICAL PARTIES. That way, the process could be completely randomized through area, class (until class is GONE that is) or income/net worth, and other factors.

A true Socialist Society does not politically judge by party affiliation: that's where the Communists went wrong; a CLASSLESS society also has no POLITICAL PARTIES.

[Cleita]

6. Until we reach a point that everyone is pretty much equal and

everyone has had their say in how government should operate I think we will have to do representational selection. This is where the Greeks went wrong. They had this system, for men of acceptable demos or tribes (where we get our word democracy). They excluded women, slaves and landless peasants or those of unacceptable tribal affiliation. So in order to include everyone in the debate it will have to be proportional for awhile until we truly become equal and classless. I would even include some seats for legal residents who aren't citizens. After all they work here and pay taxes. They should be able to bring up their unique issues for debate.

[Tyler Durden]

7. I'll munch to that.

But the goal is complete egalitarianism.

[mainegreen]

11. I don't think parties can really be wiped out. Here's my thinking on that:

People will always go to those they view as peers and friends for input and help. Inevitably networks form. It would not take long in any system for a working group of like minded people to form to help push their agenda. The difference between that and a party is small. However, in a system like the OP indicates, I think the more dangerous aspects of parties would be minimized.