http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003060.html
August 18, 2009
Jury Duty Democracy
By: Bernard Chazelle
I suggest that all US senators and representatives should be picked at
random among the adult population. Like jury duty. Except that if
you're chosen you can say no. The job will be prestigious and well
remunerated, so most lucky winners will say yes. I've given this idea a
lot of thought, that is, as much thought as one can pack in 2.5
seconds, so maybe there's a GIANT flaw but here are the pros and cons.
PROS:
1. We'd get politicians of average intelligence: no difference.
2. We'd get politicians of average honesty: huge improvement.
3. We'd get the thin Bell curve tail of lunatics, sex perverts, and
psychopaths: huge improvement. Right now we get a
"only-the-crazies-join-the-crazies" power-law distribution that
produces the Joe Liebermans of the world.
4. We'd get no elections hence no electoral campaigns hence no campaign
financing hence no lobbyists hence no corporate pimping: huge
improvement.
5. We'd get true representation of the American people, and not true
representation of the super-rich: huge improvement.
6. We'd get more women and minorities in government. We'd get an
average of 2 lawyers in all of Congress. Yes, 2! (They'd probably sue
each other and cause no harm.) Again, huge improvement.
7. If jury duty is any indication, we'd get people who often take their
job seriously: huge improvement.
CONS:
1. You don't get to choose your representatives. Like today. Right now
you get to choose people but they are not in any way your
representatives, so there would not be the slightest difference on that
score.
2..... I dunno. I am sure there's a second flaw somewhere. You have to
help me here.
PS: I don't recommend this for the US presidency because the variance
is too high.
-- Bernard Chazelle