We only need to find 0.00013% of the US population
Maybe we should use sortition then instead of elections? What could be more democratic than random average people (meeting some criteria) taking a turn at the wheel?
Maybe we should use sortition then instead of elections? What could be more democratic than random average people (meeting some criteria) taking a turn at the wheel?
Granted, neither do a significant percentage of the currently serving congress if current policy is anything to go by.
I realize that just saying that may cause some consternation among some, but it is objectively the best selection system one could possibly devise, for any people anywhere, regardless of whether people like it or not.
It's not even a selection system that is not used all over the place from choices within your family where there are certain prerequisites like being an adult or a parent or having to be a member of the union in order to vote on union matters, or having achieved certain certifications and qualifications before you can make decisions about building a highway bridge.
It is and has not been a net benefit to any of us that "democracy" was first imposed and then expanded when the founders of the USA were very explicit about the fact that democracy was a recipe for disaster and would invariably cause destruction … as it has. Personally, I would very much have been ok with benefitting from properly qualified people making decision for me that I have no competent capacity to make for myself, rather than having lived in a society where everyone thinks they are equally smart and competent and my vote counts the same as some fool who does not know that a week is seven days (something I heard someone in her early 20s say yesterday. She thought the week excludes the weekend)
The career politicians, intelligencia, and c-suite technocrats have been running shit for the past half century or more - you see where it's gotten us, to the ruin you describe.
Your determination of objectivity seems a little... subjective.
Maybe this was objectively best at the time but at minimum the race part seems to no longer be true.
> I realize that just saying that may cause some consternation among some, but it is objectively the best selection system one could possibly devise
Combining these two statements suggests that you would advocate for white supremacy. Is that a correct deduction of mine? I would rather ask than just jump to conclusions.
Take the existing system and have the house and Senate argue every official act to the sortition for a vote. How would this be worse than the current crony capitalism we suffer under?
unfortunately, this is also true of our elected officials
I think they understand just fine, most of the time, but are more interested in enriching themselves and their cronies than looking out for their constituents or the health of the system as a whole.
It's kind of the same reasoning I use for extending the vote to children. In a country of 330 million, each individual vote is nearly meaningless on it's own so I figure the risk is much lower than the benefit of getting people involved at a younger age in a future that they should care deeply about. HN did not collectively appreciate this suggestion when I made it, however :).