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?
> Granted, neither do a significant percentage of the currently serving congress if current policy is anything to go by.
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.
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?
Regardless of whether one may like the initial selection criteria or not, what you describe is precisely why the country (USA) was supposed to be led by land owning free white men. The assumption being that people that fit that criteria, plausibly possessed a requisite initial selection criteria set of skills and knowledge that would constitute the pool of best qualified people to run a government in the common interest. From that pool of people their peers would further select amongst each other using those very same abilities, knowledge, skills, and capacities to further choose the utmost best person to lead.
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 destruction to the Founder's political vision didn't come from expanding the franchise, it came direct democracy. The idea was explicitly that the average voter was completely unqualified to choose the President, and that the only question the voter would be asked is: "Who in your town should make decisions for you?" That person would go to your state legislature, which would vote for your state's electors, who would go and deliberatively decide the President. With the 17th Amendment and binding primary elections we threw out that wisdom.
> Regardless of whether one may like the initial selection criteria or not, what you describe is precisely why the country (USA) was supposed to be led by land owning free white men.
> 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.
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.
I agree, I have long thought sortition might be the right answer. Right along with leveraging modern technology to reset our representative-to-citizen ratio to something like the constitution originally prescribed.
The thing is, the last few times I recall when some have tried more direct democracy (Brexit, a few referenda in europe, california ballot measures) it seems to lead to decisions that seem rather sub-optimal. I am not sure the random citizen might actually be better at governing that a professional politician.
I think that is a completely fair assumption, you may be right. Partly why I think we should dramatically increase the numbers of representatives is to mitigate this problem somewhat. On average, I think a lot of regular citizens would do just fine. So we limit the damage by limiting the amount of power a single vote has.
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 :).
The problem here is that they then will have do depend even more on others than people who choose the job do, which shifts the problem one ring out. So this will give more influence to lobbyists, who know their areas well and are experts in talking people into things. There's also the problem of staff. Politicians tend to bring key staff along with as they rise. But where will randomly selected legislators find a half-dozen people with the necessary knowledge and skills?
I think random people would either be shallow and selfish about it or be so intimidated by their responsibilities that they would be at the mercy of knowledgable advisors chosen from the same small class of people who run the government now.
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?