Lottery form of elections for House of Reps - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ASU2003 · 08-29-2006, 07:09 PM

I had this weird idea and what to see what other people think. Would it work? Would it be better than having campaigns every 2 years for people who don't do very much, and most people don't even know who their representatives are. Also, a random lottery based election system would be more representative of the country. You wouldn't have the rich people who can run elections and come up with big donations in return for favors once they are in office winning elections.

I'm sure that after a little while that anybody could learn how to vote on issues and argue in front of the other 434 people (434 + 1 = 435 total).

The problem would be what would you do about your current job? Would it be the same as the military reserves where you would leave your job for a year or two and then come back to it? I'm sure the salary of $165,000/year would be a strong incentive to serve for two years.

The_Jazz · 08-30-2006, 06:52 AM

Completely unworkable from a constitutional point of view. It's also unworkable from a realistic point of view since you would virtually ensure that the best person for the job never even had a chance to run.

Ustwo · 08-30-2006, 06:58 AM

This could work if there was a set of minium requirements in education and understanding of the US government.

In fact I think we need those requirements right now for both running and voting but thats another issue. Of course if we had these requirements then there would be no point to random selection of representatives.

The_Jazz · 08-30-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This could work if there was a set of minium requirements in education and understanding of the US government.

In fact I think we need those requirements right now for both running and voting but thats another issue. Of course if we had these requirements then there would be no point to random selection of representatives.

Why I'm just going to run out and sign up with the Republican Party right now! I completely agree with Ustwo on something! I must be losing my touch...

Ustwo · 08-30-2006, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Why I'm just going to run out and sign up with the Republican Party right now! I completely agree with Ustwo on something! I must be losing my touch...

One tends to gain wisdom with age. Don't fight it.

dc_dux · 08-31-2006, 05:51 AM

I would rather see public funding of congressional elections.

We spend $billions of taxpayer dollars to promote democracy abroad so why not spend some bucks here to level the playing field so that congressional elections arent so tilted towards incumbents. Perhaps more good people would be willing to run for office if they didnt have to become beholding to special interests and PACs.

Ustwo · 08-31-2006, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I would rather see public funding of congressional elections.

We spend $billions of taxpayer dollars to promote democracy abroad so why not spend some bucks here to level the playing field so that congressional elections arent so tilted towards incumbents. Perhaps more good people would be willing to run for office if they didnt have to become beholding to special interests and PACs.

And when 30 people decide to run, who gets the funding?

ASU2003 · 08-31-2006, 07:56 AM

I guess what I was trying to get at is who would be the best to represent us? As a white male, I feel pretty represented. But that is because we are the majority when it comes to voting.

Yes, when you vote you should look at who is running and where they stand on the issues, but what happens when both candidates support something you don't like? You know that one of them will get elected. And normal people might not choose to run because they know that the media or their competitor might find out about something they did in the past and tell everyone about it.

The thing about my idea is it gives minorities a chance at getting elected. It's not just Hispanics, Native Americans, and people from Asian and Indian decent. But I don't believe there have been any atheists, welfare recipients/unemployed, environmentalists, Muslims, gay/lesbian, no one under 35 (but above 25), and a bunch of other people that make up a large part of the US. But they have no shot at winning a general election.

All you get is politicians who know how to play the game and can get 51% of the vote.

dc_dux · 08-31-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

And when 30 people decide to run, who gets the funding?

Proposals I have seen provide public funding to the primary winners of the two major parties.

While I would like to see more voices and perspectives represented in national elections, our two party system, with all its faults, is far better than multi-party parliamentary systems where a fringe party can have far too much influence within a ruling coaltion government.

08-29-2006, 07:09 PM	#1 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Lottery form of elections for House of Reps I had this weird idea and what to see what other people think. Would it work? Would it be better than having campaigns every 2 years for people who don't do very much, and most people don't even know who their representatives are. Also, a random lottery based election system would be more representative of the country. You wouldn't have the rich people who can run elections and come up with big donations in return for favors once they are in office winning elections. I'm sure that after a little while that anybody could learn how to vote on issues and argue in front of the other 434 people (434 + 1 = 435 total). The problem would be what would you do about your current job? Would it be the same as the military reserves where you would leave your job for a year or two and then come back to it? I'm sure the salary of $165,000/year would be a strong incentive to serve for two years.

08-30-2006, 06:52 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Completely unworkable from a constitutional point of view. It's also unworkable from a realistic point of view since you would virtually ensure that the best person for the job never even had a chance to run. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

08-30-2006, 06:58 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	This could work if there was a set of minium requirements in education and understanding of the US government. In fact I think we need those requirements right now for both running and voting but thats another issue. Of course if we had these requirements then there would be no point to random selection of representatives. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

08-31-2006, 05:51 AM	#6 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I would rather see public funding of congressional elections. We spend $billions of taxpayer dollars to promote democracy abroad so why not spend some bucks here to level the playing field so that congressional elections arent so tilted towards incumbents. Perhaps more good people would be willing to run for office if they didnt have to become beholding to special interests and PACs.

08-31-2006, 07:56 AM	#8 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I guess what I was trying to get at is who would be the best to represent us? As a white male, I feel pretty represented. But that is because we are the majority when it comes to voting. Yes, when you vote you should look at who is running and where they stand on the issues, but what happens when both candidates support something you don't like? You know that one of them will get elected. And normal people might not choose to run because they know that the media or their competitor might find out about something they did in the past and tell everyone about it. The thing about my idea is it gives minorities a chance at getting elected. It's not just Hispanics, Native Americans, and people from Asian and Indian decent. But I don't believe there have been any atheists, welfare recipients/unemployed, environmentalists, Muslims, gay/lesbian, no one under 35 (but above 25), and a bunch of other people that make up a large part of the US. But they have no shot at winning a general election. All you get is politicians who know how to play the game and can get 51% of the vote.