Elective Office

[Suddenly]

Good points. Of course, I could argue that Congress is limited by the Supreme Court's decisions when its laws are challenged, but that is a tangent that I don't wish to explore at the moment.

My point about citizens and jury service is this. In my experience, which is purely anecdotal, on the whole, average, off-the-street jurors do a very good job of administering justice in their findings of fact. They usually try earnestly to apply principles of fairness and justness when deliberating and reaching their verdicts based on the law as explained to them, and as it applies to the evidence before them. They do this using their common sense, life experience, and guidance from the court. By and large, the jury system works remarkably well.

Something else that crossed my mind, that the Grand Jury is an example of laypersons chosen by lot having some control of the executive branch in many states. Here, absent a waiver, you cannot be tried except by indictment.

In theory, nice, in practice the grand jury does what the "advisors" tell them to do I'd ballpark at 99% of the time... it was generally big news when our grand jury no-true-billed someone and even then it was usually a case nobody got worked up over and the grand jury submission was half-baked (abusive husband needed killing or some such...)

I'd agree about petit juries in general, but also suggest two points, first that this isn't universal. Some juries just suck, but at least their influence is limited to a single case.

The second is that much of the effectiveness is a result of the restrictions placed on the jury, the serious anti-tampering laws, the careful instructions, the careful screening, use of strikes, and so on... I fear that such safeguards applied to a more open-ended legislative body would result in a large part of the power being wielded by those doing the screening...

Anyway, you don't really believe the people choose the best qualified persons to run government, do you?

I could answer by tautology, that the winner is by default the consensus best choice, and that would be probably the answer closest to my point. True aristocracy is impossible as a practical form of government, and the point of a Republic isn't to ensure the best as much as to allow for a fair choice. It is possible that no particular person could think a candidate is the very best, but that still this person could be the best choice overall seeing that he ranks the highest over more people... In fact, the more that large groups really dislike the people other groups most think is best, the further down the lists we would go to find who is, all in all, the best choice, and that person would be less likely to be any persons favorite...

Come on, the electorate of Missouri chose a dead man for a Senate seat in 2000, knowing full well he was dead before the election.

Good move too, considering the opponent.

California voters elected Sonny Bono's arm-candy widow with no qualifications related to governing (for that matter, Sonny Bono had none either) to represent them in the House. They also elected an actor/champion bodybuilder as their governor. Why? Because he's rich and famous and well-liked. For that matter, my state elected a deluded, meglomaniac cynical fundie as its chief jurist. In none of those cases did the people choose the best qualified person. I could go on and on with examples.

Right, they aren't the best by the criteria you would chose, or that we would even agree that no sane particular person would choose, but if people think that fame or faith equals fitness, then that is what they think the best choice is, and therefore, as a matter of democracy they are the best choice...

Heck, people could agree that the best choice is a random person... Even better, we could agree that the mass criteria is completely random, which would suggest that much government is already more in line with your proposal than maybe we realize.

In elections big and small, usually the candidates who are best known win. Therefore, those who get elected tend to be those with the best marketing campaigns. Often, that means the one who spends the most on advertising wins. Modern election politics is much more like Madison Avenue advertising than White House or Capitol Hill governing or policy making.

That's hardly the kind of meritocracy I suspect even you agree the founders probably had in mind.

Then again, maybe is isn't so far off. Putting yourself in such a position takes some ability, and a contest is a contest. Full contact politics based on image isn't a new concept, the only difference is that misinformation comes on TV rather than in pamphlets and word of mouth or stump speeches...

Is it worse to spew BS via 30 second hit ad or from the back of a train or while standing on a stump? Same crap, different century.

I fail to see how my suggestion is any worse.

Only that as things are now, a person has to prove the ability to put themselves in a position to have all that money and support. All other things being equal, at least now people have exhibited some skill level that allowed them to win some kind of contest.

It's not a democracy. It is just as much a republic as one in which the representatives as elected, rather than drafted. The only difference is in how they get chosen. It would involve much less pandering to constituents and special interests and governing by poll results, and much more using own's judgment and sense to fashion policy and to support or oppose the proposals of colleagues. The coalition building and tit for tat agreements that are inherent in politics would of course remain, as they probably should.

Why is doing what the people want a bad thing?

(nah... that is just restating a basic honest disagreement... rhetorical question... I think that distinction is pretty clear and could be more fairly stated but part of the argument is emotional as reflected below and I'll just stop babbling...)

More importantly, your "lottery kings" (play on "philosopher kings") are going to lack any pretense of legitimacy whatsoever. The cynic may poo-poo modern democratic elections, but it can't be denied that no matter the twisted mechanism, people are choosing their leaders ("media kings?"), even if it is because they were once on "The Love Boat."

The "lottery king" suffers from a big "who the heck are you?" problem. Legislative power tends to apply some sense of moral right and wrong, unlike a jury they decide what conduct should land people in the slam, whereas a jury just points out whether they think one person did something wrong as defined by people that we can at least say with a straight face we all chose... Removing that pretense is going to get weird when the first person goes to prison based on randomly chosen people...

The texts are not perfect, and some of the writing could have been clarified in retrospect, but it's hardly the same as guessing what Jesus really meant.

AS

Not the same, just in a rough sense I am of the opinion that most people (me included) tend to use both (usually unconsciously) to legitmize their own beliefs. For example, the born-again would be likely to believe Jesus thinks marijuana is bad, where the more laid back new age christian would believe that Jesus would be down with getting high... Over on SC some time ago I posited the concept of "Red Jesus" vs. "Blue Jesus" to illustrate that (as in Red v. Blue states)... I still wonder if I got the idea somehwere else... I think the search function is screwed or I'd link to it...

Likewise, people in politics do the same. The framers belived in the will of the people. The framers were distrustful of democracy... a person develops an idea of "what the framers really meant" largely informed by their own ideas, same vague concept as an ink blot test...

Jesus is mallable because all accounts are vague and not easily applied to modern times... The framers are likewise even though they are somewhat more on point and applicable... it is just that there are so darn many of them and they were rarely if ever in total agreement... Ever read Crosskey's "Politics and The Constitution?" It's a somewhat compelling and sourced argument about "what the framers really meant" It's at 90 degree angles to pretty much every commonly held position. Manages to be wildly conservative while also cutting federalism off at the knees... Weird stuff, largely ignored these days as radical and somewhat because of his unconventional method of relying on the personal papers of certain framers...

I'd agree they aren't equal, as some framer-babble can be strongly discreditied via research as there is greater material to draw from. I'm more claiming that the basic concept of using them to represent one's own ideas is similar.


Yeah... I think this is too long too. Sorry.....

 

[AmateurScientist]

Something else that crossed my mind, that the Grand Jury is an example of laypersons chosen by lot having some control of the executive branch in many states. Here, absent a waiver, you cannot be tried except by indictment.

In theory, nice, in practice the grand jury does what the "advisors" tell them to do I'd ballpark at 99% of the time... it was generally big news when our grand jury no-true-billed someone and even then it was usually a case nobody got worked up over and the grand jury submission was half-baked (abusive husband needed killing or some such...)

Oh, no argument there at all. You know the old joke about the DA being able to indict a ham sandwich.

I would say that no-bills happen here as often as judges find a lack of probable cause in preliminary hearings, which is to say very rarely. 1 in 100 may be overestimating it by a factor of 10 or so.

The second is that much of the effectiveness is a result of the restrictions placed on the jury, the serious anti-tampering laws, the careful instructions, the careful screening, use of strikes, and so on... I fear that such safeguards applied to a more open-ended legislative body would result in a large part of the power being wielded by those doing the screening...

You may be right, but my proposal would combine representative rule by citizen-statemen with the guidance, if you will, of professional advisors. That's not unlike judges invading the province of the jury in rare cases when appropriate, and also deciding all questions of law.

The people probably aren't qualified to decide whether legislative proposals pass constitutional muster or not. Guess what? Neither is Congress. Well, some of the members probably are, as many are lawyers, but they hardly ever consider the constitutionality of their proposals, because they're politicians first and foremost. Citizen-statesmen chosen by lot would not be politicians at all. They would be free from having to legislate by poll and completely free from the very real and onerous burden of having to raise campaign funds year-round. Fund raising seems to be the primary occupation of every single Congressperson. The Senate isn't much better in that regard, because their purses typically must be much larger. Six years can go by very quickly when you have to raise $30 million.

I could answer by tautology, that the winner is by default the consensus best choice, and that would be probably the answer closest to my point. True aristocracy is impossible as a practical form of government, and the point of a Republic isn't to ensure the best as much as to allow for a fair choice.

I think the founders were rightly concerned about the tyranny of the majority. That's why they gave each state two seats in the Senate. Choosing a winner by majority or even a consensus often yields the result that we get the candidate who appeals to the lowest common denominator. That isn't a meritocracy.

Why is a meritocracy preferred, anyway? That's not what the founders had in mind, in my opinion. Citizen-statesman is very much like the concept of a citizen-soldier. You have the people governing, quite literally. Not all the people govern, of course, as in a democracy, but the governors come from the people, not from an aristocracy. Rule by aristocracy is what the founders were trying to get away from, in my opinion.

It is possible that no particular person could think a candidate is the very best, but that still this person could be the best choice overall seeing that he ranks the highest over more people... In fact, the more that large groups really dislike the people other groups most think is best, the further down the lists we would go to find who is, all in all, the best choice, and that person would be less likely to be any persons favorite...

Good move too, considering the opponent.

Right, they aren't the best by the criteria you would chose, or that we would even agree that no sane particular person would choose, but if people think that fame or faith equals fitness, then that is what they think the best choice is, and therefore, as a matter of democracy they are the best choice...

Currently, the "best" candidate is chosen on mostly superficial grounds, even when voters take the time to delve into the relevant issues. They don't usually get an accurate insight into a candidate's actual views on the issues. They get sound bites, talking points, and cynical reflections of poll results.

Heck, people could agree that the best choice is a random person... Even better, we could agree that the mass criteria is completely random, which would suggest that much government is already more in line with your proposal than maybe we realize. Then again, maybe is isn't so far off. Putting yourself in such a position takes some ability, and a contest is a contest. Full contact politics based on image isn't a new concept, the only difference is that misinformation comes on TV rather than in pamphlets and word of mouth or stump speeches...

Is it worse to spew BS via 30 second hit ad or from the back of a train or while standing on a stump? Same crap, different century.

I agree about the same crap, different century. The chief difference is the degree to which we have instant access to news from across the globe nearly the instant after it has occurred or someone has said something stupid or scandalous.

Otherwise, the stumping is essentially the same as ever.

Only that as things are now, a person has to prove the ability to put themselves in a position to have all that money and support. All other things being equal, at least now people have exhibited some skill level that allowed them to win some kind of contest. Why is doing what the people want a bad thing?

Turn the question on its head. Why is allowing the people, through their fairly chosen by lottery representatives, to govern a bad thing? What's the practical difference in efficacy in having average Joes and Jills legislating and having pandering, gutless pros do it? I say put a fearless and rumbuctious Butkus achetype in there and let him govern. Also, let Pauly Shore and Paul Abdul (or their lesser known and poorer regular citizen analogs) govern. In the end, they'll sort out what's best for a cross-section of the country as a whole, rich and poor, urban and rural, white, black, brown, yellow, and purple, not just for fat cats who are juiced into the system inside the beltline.

More importantly, your "lottery kings" (play on "philosopher kings") are going to lack any pretense of legitimacy whatsoever. The cynic may poo-poo modern democratic elections, but it can't be denied that no matter the twisted mechanism, people are choosing their leaders ("media kings?"), even if it is because they were once on "The Love Boat."

Ha ha. I almost mentioned Fred Grandy. Anyway, I dispute your claim of illegitimacy. They would be no less legitimate than petit juries are in the judicial system, and those juries are absolutely integral and essential to our courts and to justice in the US.

Remember, they would be representatives of their respective districts and their states. Presumably, they would have a vested interest in doing what's right for their own families, friends, and colleagues back home, especially when they're likely to return their at the end of their terms of service. Some would be good, some would be great, some mediocre, and some would suck. Hmmm...sounds just like Congress today.

The "lottery king" suffers from a big "who the heck are you?" problem.

I don't get that. Why don't petit juries suffer from the same problem?

Legislative power tends to apply some sense of moral right and wrong, unlike a jury they decide what conduct should land people in the slam, whereas a jury just points out whether they think one person did something wrong as defined by people that we can at least say with a straight face we all chose... Removing that pretense is going to get weird when the first person goes to prison based on randomly chosen people...

The legislators would have to live with the consequences of their laws. So would their families, friends, and colleagues. I think more rational debate might actually take place on the floor and in committees than does now. Mostly what we see there now is grandstanding and campaigning through sound bites. There is little honest and genuine debate on the floors of the House or the Senate. Real citizens would be free to speak their minds without fear of political repercussion, except from their colleagues in Congress. Most honest debate might take place.

Indeed, due to the sheer volume of the texts and their overwhelming pressure to campaign for re-election daily, few legislators read even portions of the bills they must vote on. Also, many have abysymal attendance and voting records. One-term citizens would be free from all the campaigning altogether, and would presumably have better attendance and voting records.

Likewise, people in politics do the same. The framers belived in the will of the people. The framers were distrustful of democracy... a person develops an idea of "what the framers really meant" largely informed by their own ideas, same vague concept as an ink blot test...

The most influential framers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority and factionalism. The Federalist Papers are chock full of discussion about the evils inherent in mob rule.

So much for the will of the people. On the other hand, "the will of the people" could indeed mean the will not of the majority, but of the common individual man in matters of governance. From that perspective, sending Mr. Smith to Washington is a great idea. He will give his best and most earnest effort to represent what his people back home want, tempered with what he thinks is right (well, at least James Stewart's Mr. Smith would).

Ever read Crosskey's "Politics and The Constitution?" It's a somewhat compelling and sourced argument about "what the framers really meant" It's at 90 degree angles to pretty much every commonly held position. Manages to be wildly conservative while also cutting federalism off at the knees... Weird stuff, largely ignored these days as radical and somewhat because of his unconventional method of relying on the personal papers of certain framers...

No, I've never read it. I might look into it. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'd agree they aren't equal, as some framer-babble can be strongly discreditied via research as there is greater material to draw from. I'm more claiming that the basic concept of using them to represent one's own ideas is similar.

Yeah, I get your point. And yeah, my post is too long too. I've also half lit as I write, so please forgive my typos, misspellings, and incoherence.

AS

 

[Suddenly]

I don't get that. Why don't petit juries suffer from the same ["who the heck are you?] problem?

[/B]

As far as I can tell they do in the popular realm every time someone brings up a large personal injury verdict...

Past that...

Cultural tradition for one thing... that is in the realm of the practical more than the theoretical, but a strong practical consideration that reflects itself is how we change things to this system... we wouldn't flip a coin, we would take a vote...

More central is the nature of the task. It is one thing to draw upon random lot to decide a question of fact then to make policies based on opinion... The difference between "Is Paul dead" based on presented evidence and "Is the death penalty moral" which is more based on belief.

I'd tend to believe that if we were to flip a switch and have a society that has been developed along the lines you suggest rather than democratic tradition that things would be slightly different, better in some ways and worse in others...

Maybe a split legislature... make the House random (and double or triple the seats to lessen the chance that the body chosen would be statistically out of line with the population) and go back to having the State Legislatures choose the Senate...

I think I'd vote for that...

No, I've never read it. I might look into it. Thanks for the suggestion.

It's a 3 volume set though... Vol. 3, written some time after the first 2 contains a chapter that does a good job of explaining Vols 1 & 2... so if it pops up and you want an idea of what Crosskey was about without a major project grab the 3rd volume if you see it...

 

[BPSCG]

Can someone explain to me why term limits is a bad idea for congressmen, senators, and Supreme Court justices, but a good idea for the president?

Try to use arguments that won't make me giggle. Note I'm not saying whether or not I think they're a good idea, because my opinion on the issue really depends on my daily biorhythms.

 

[Suddenly]

Can someone explain to me why term limits is a bad idea for congressmen, senators, and Supreme Court justices, but a good idea for the president?

Try to use arguments that won't make me giggle. Note I'm not saying whether or not I think they're a good idea, because my opinion on the issue really depends on my daily biorhythms.

Only one I can come up with is that the chief executive weilds such influence over his branch that a particularly long term of service would cause greater disruption when a change does occur. The others are not quite so influntial as they are one of several who vote on matters...

Past that... I dunno...

 

[AmateurScientist]

Can someone explain to me why term limits is a bad idea for congressmen, senators, and Supreme Court justices, but a good idea for the president?

Try to use arguments that won't make me giggle. Note I'm not saying whether or not I think they're a good idea, because my opinion on the issue really depends on my daily biorhythms.

Bad idea for Congress: Congress makes the laws, and who the hell is going to propose to write himself or herself out of a job?

Bad idea for Supreme Court justices: The Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated from politics. That's why the justices are appointed for indefinite terms "during good Behaviour," which is effectively for life, unless he or she commits a serious crime or breach of judicial ethics. They are not meant to be impeachable merely for political reasons.

Good idea for President: FDR.

AS

 

[JOEBIALEK]

same

good points