On 5/12/2012 5:53 AM, dadiOH wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/11/2012 5:42 AM, dadiOH wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 5/10/2012 9:14 AM, Han wrote:
Someone said we should go back to administration as was done in
ancient Athens (I didn't look up the details). The names of all
vote-eligible citizens would be put into a pot and someone would
blindly draw names to be assigned administrative jobs. A new
lottery would be done every so often, so there wouldn't be
entrenched administrators. The only criterion was that they had to
work for the benefit of Athens. The US is too averse of
professional administrators for fear of corruption, but corruption
by congress is allowed almost unfettered, alas. Something needs to
be done so the people will benefit eventually.
I once mentioned to my son that there should be a lottery and or a
requirement that government officials are not elected rather they
are randomly chosen. Not totally unlike jury duty.
I've been advocating the "ransomly drawn" idea for years. When I
lived in Hawaii I knew many of the legislators, bounced the idea off
them. To a man, they thought it was a rotten idea which confirms my
belief that it is a good one.

That might be OK if the random drawing picked, say, Cliff Huxtable. But
would you want a legislature full of Archie Bunkers?
You wouldn't get that with a random selection.
In a random selection any combination is equally possible. For example,
take a population of 1,000 citizens, number them consecutively, than
select five of them by random. You're just as likely to draw nos.
1,2,3,4, and 5 as you are 41, 172, 394, 666 and 827. You're just as
likely to pick the five least qualified people as you are to draw any
other combination.

Seems to me if a random
selection of citizens can decide a person's fate in a murder case they could
reach a reasonable consensus regarding legislation.

First, what makes you think a jury is randomly selected from the
population at large?
Second, a jury is not just turned loose to decide a person's fate.
There are tight controls over what evidence they are presented with,
what they are instructed about the law, etc. Plus, if they get too far
out of control, the judge can enter a judgment contrary to their
verdict. Either side can appeal, etc. etc.
Third, what makes you think a random group of citizens could, or would,
reach a more reasonable consensus than elected representatives do?
In the worst case, you would get a number of greedy, shortsighted,
incompetent, self serving bums.

I can picture scenarios much worse than that.
The difference between that and the current
situation is that they would only be there for one term.

The voters, who ARE "majority rule" when it comes to electing
representatives, already have it in their power to put people in for
only term.
No pension either.

That should be the law already.
I would also require anyone who has to take an oath to uphold and defend
the Constitution to take an examination to prove they understand about
the Constitution and laws that they actually understand what that oath
means. If they can't prove they understand their oath, they shouldn't
be allowed to take it, meaning they should not be allowed to accept the
office.