Representation by Random Selection

[Phi for All]

While some careers gain many benefits from experienced personnel, politics seems to have some extraneous problems with more experienced career members. Campaign financing, partisan politics, corruption and mounting compensation costs all suggest that alternatives might be warranted.

 

A study done at Cornell University suggests that selecting representatives randomly can lead to an improvement in efficiency (links to the study are available within that article). This would eliminate campaigning costs for those representatives entirely, offset by whatever lottery system costs were incurred. It would cut compensation costs as well, since retirement benefits could be reduced or eliminated. Could the rank and file salary of $174,000 per year be reduced or is that better left as an inducement for Random Joe or Jane?

 

Would a random selection system be less prone to corruption or manipulation? Is the time served a major factor? Obviously, you want an optimum time that doesn't take too many years away from the citizen's normal career, but gives him or her enough time to gain experience at the job without becoming corrupted.

 

Can a system like this help US politics? What do you think it would take to have representatives chosen by lottery? Could our Congress be made up of politically inexperienced citizens who would dedicate X years of their lives to serving their country in the legislative branch?

[Appolinaria]

While some careers gain many benefits from experienced personnel, politics seems to have some extraneous problems with more experienced career members. Campaign financing, partisan politics, corruption and mounting compensation costs all suggest that alternatives might be warranted.

 

A study done at Cornell University suggests that selecting representatives randomly can lead to an improvement in efficiency (links to the study are available within that article). This would eliminate campaigning costs for those representatives entirely, offset by whatever lottery system costs were incurred. It would cut compensation costs as well, since retirement benefits could be reduced or eliminated. Could the rank and file salary of $174,000 per year be reduced or is that better left as an inducement for Random Joe or Jane?

 

Would a random selection system be less prone to corruption or manipulation? Is the time served a major factor? Obviously, you want an optimum time that doesn't take too many years away from the citizen's normal career, but gives him or her enough time to gain experience at the job without becoming corrupted.

 

Can a system like this help US politics? What do you think it would take to have representatives chosen by lottery? Could our Congress be made up of politically inexperienced citizens who would dedicate X years of their lives to serving their country in the legislative branch?

 

I kind of like this idea. The most diverse options, the better. I think this applies to everything. Maybe the fresh perspective of someone inexperienced coupled with the experience of an established member can create something innovative.

 

 

New things sprout up in nature... natural selection determines whether they carry on. Should this idea cross over to politics?

 

 

Maybe throwing the pieces in the air, and seeing how they fall, could be more beneficial than we expect?

Edited October 30, 2011 by Appolinaria

[jeskill]

I like the idea, but would prefer that there were a baseline amount of knowledge necessary for the job. At least a solid understanding of civics.

[Appolinaria]

I like the idea, but would prefer that there were a baseline amount of knowledge necessary for the job. At least a solid understanding of civics.

 

I agree. I think what's in question is experience, not education.

[Phi for All]

According to this article, one year ago 35% of the incoming representatives had never held elective office before. This tells us that the current system can work with inexperienced legislators.

 

What do you think would be necessary requirements for serving in this way? Desire or lack of it can't be a factor. I know many people who would be fantastic representatives but would never choose to go into politics voluntarily. Serving your government, like jury-duty, would be undeniably appealing for the kind of people I'd like to see in office.

 

I'm not sure about the education level, but I feel I should be sure. Part of me acknowledges that there is a great deal of reading and writing required and a lot of civic knowledge that can benefit a legislator. But once we start placing educational restrictions, how far do we go? Not everyone who is smart enough for college can afford it. If this is to be a true random representation of the population, how can we restrict it safely? I hate slippery slope arguments but they are sometimes the most accurate, unfortunately.

 

What about compensation? Glenn Beck suggests that Congress get paid the same as soldiers, but he neglects to mention that soldiers have their food, clothing, housing and entertainment paid by the government. The current rate of $174,000 is more than three times what the average citizen makes, but what about the business owner who gets "drafted" into Congress? The current rate seems high for a non-career position, but may seem low to this business owner. Is there something else that can be used as an incentive, like free medical insurance for life, or exemption from income tax (something that could be taken away if it's proven that the representative was corrupted)? Or should serving be reward enough?

[Appolinaria]

Do we not need some restrictions on the pool we randomly pick from? What if a person who is mentally disabled is chosen?

[Phi for All]

Do we not need some restrictions on the pool we randomly pick from? What if a person who is mentally disabled is chosen?

Nothing I've seen so far excludes anyone currently from being a member of Congress except age and citizenship. You have to be age 25 and a citizen for 7 years for the House and age 30 and a citizen for 9 years for the Senate. The present system has an automatic bias against the mentally impaired and convicted felons, so perhaps a lottery system would need some strictures for repeat offenders and a test for minimum mental fitness.

[Appolinaria]

Let's say I was chosen to be admin of this board by a lottery.

 

If thrown into this position, I would not know how to utilize the function of the board to apply my own personal judgement of how things should be done.

 

Training by other members might cost money, depleting anything saved from this lottery method- as opposed to being elected because I have prior knowledge & experience.

 

How important is education in implementing someone's standpoints politically?

 

Maybe it is just as necessary as mental health.

[Phi for All]

Let's say I was chosen to be admin of this board by a lottery.

No, let's say you are chosen by lottery to be the US Representative for your district in CT in the year 2016. As shown earlier, 35% of last year's incoming congresscritters had never held office before. You have a staff that could get you up to speed on procedure and methodology. Your own viewpoint is important but you're there to represent what voters in your district want. You already have limited means to poll your district, I'm sure.

 

I'm thinking that many people in this position would be more willing to admit that the two major parties don't really represent their own stances accurately, so party affiliations might not mean as much as before. What would your inclination be in that regard? Would you band together with your fellow CT reps? Would you look for other reps who held your views? Would you do more to reach out to the people in your district?

[Appolinaria]

These questions don't particularly interest me.

 

I have a degree in marketing.

 

 

Can I just go back to sitting at a computer doing repetitive tasks from 9-5?

 

If not, I'll just go the easiest route, so long as I get my salary to pay off college funds and medical bills.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Appolinaria

[jeskill]

I don't think there'd be a need for party affiliations. Representatives that aren't elected, don't need a platform or a condensed set of apriori objectives.

 

If this were to work, I think you'd need to re-vamp the whole education system so that everyone has sufficient knowledge after high school. It could also be a voluntary pool-- for example, those who pass exams X, Y and after high school get into the pool of potential representatives.

[TonyMcC]

This sounds like the way jurors are found in the UK.The jury system has worked successfully for centuries although Judges are needed to ensure the system is guided by an expert in the law. Our members of parliament are backed up by an army of Civil Servants who (IMO) through advice channels do what they can to prevent individual Members of Parliament making really stupid decisions. They don't always succeed! However, it seems the proposed system could work and with a fairly large number of randomly picked people forming a government perhaps individual characteristics such as intelligence and education would not be of great consequence.

Edited October 30, 2011 by TonyMcC

[Phi for All]

I don't think there'd be a need for party affiliations. Representatives that aren't elected, don't need a platform or a condensed set of apriori objectives.

Do you think this would lead to better representation? My knee jerk reaction says yes but parties can be beneficial (as long as two don't dominate or misrepresent).

 

If this were to work, I think you'd need to re-vamp the whole education system so that everyone has sufficient knowledge after high school. It could also be a voluntary pool-- for example, those who pass exams X, Y and after high school get into the pool of potential representatives.

As long as the pool weren't simply full of the kinds of people who are inclined to enter politics currently, I think this would work. And it would avoid the obvious consequence of forcing someone to serve who absolutely didn't want to. I worry that this might eventually be corrupted, but then I suppose any system is susceptible and needs to be revamped periodically.

 

This sounds like the way jurors are found in the UK.The jury system has worked successfully for centuries although Judges are needed to ensure the system is guided by an expert in the law. Our members of parliament are backed up by an army of Civil Servants who (IMO) through advice channels do what they can to prevent individual Members of Parliament making really stupid decisions. They don't always succeed! However, it seems the proposed system could work and with a fairly large number of randomly picked people forming a government perhaps individual characteristics such as intelligence and education would not be of great consequence.

Here in the US as well. Many people consider it a hassle, perhaps for its brevity or the time it takes away from normal pursuits.

 

I would hope that a period of four or five years for Congress might be viewed differently, and more favorably. I think it would seem like more of an experience rather than an inconvenience.

[Appolinaria]

Just for the record, I don't have a degree in marketing myself.

 

Situation above was hypothetical.

[timo]

I really like econophysics, it is the fun part of statistical physics (the modeling and playing with complex systems) without the boring part (the physics). They sometimes even predict experimentally testable things. But I feel like pointing out that this "study" is a computer simulation based on rather ad-hoc assumptions.

 

Sidenote: The "Universita di Catania" translates to "University of Catania", not to "Cornell University" .

[Appolinaria]

I really like econophysics, it is the fun part of statistical physics (the modeling and playing with complex systems) without the boring part (the physics). They sometimes even predict experimentally testable things. But I feel like pointing out that this "study" is a computer simulation based on rather ad-hoc assumptions.

 

Sidenote: The "Universita di Catania" translates to "University of Catania", not to "Cornell University" .

 

Ha! I didn't even pick up on that.

[Brainteaserfan]

According to this article, one year ago 35% of the incoming representatives had never held elective office before. This tells us that the current system can work with inexperienced legislators.

That doesn't mean, however, that the incoming reps didn't have significant qualifications for holding those offices.

 

I'm sort of inclined to think that if a random selection representation system were designed, you should have to take a test and be put on a list of "wanting to" candidates. This way, hopefully you would weed out those who didn't have basic qualifications and didn't want to, while at the same time maintaining the lower cost and most of the other benefits associated with random selection.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Appolinaria]

That doesn't mean, however, that the incoming reps didn't have significant qualifications for holding those offices.

 

I'm sort of inclined to think that if a random selection representation system were designed, you should have to take a test and be put on a list of "wanting to" candidates. This way, hopefully you would weed out those who didn't have basic qualifications and didn't want to, while at the same time maintaining the lower cost and most of the other benefits associated with random selection.

 

I completely agree.

 

And if unable to pay for education, perhaps a certificate can be granted- confirming a number of service hours was completed, pertaining to civics.... or something like that. Just to prove genuine interest/concern with these matters, despite their financial situation.

 

That way, it will eliminate apathy or the intent of personal gain... and if they're provided with staff who can inform them on procedure & methods, proper education will not be necessary.

 

However, creating a system & proving these qualifications might be difficult... or inefficient. I don't know.

[Phi for All]

Sidenote: The "Universita di Catania" translates to "University of Catania", not to "Cornell University" .

My bad. The article linked to the study "Accidental Politicians: How Randomly Selected Legislators Can Improve Parliament Efficiency" at arXiv.org at the Cornell University Library. After I got through the conclusions, the Cornell logo was the last page I saw before starting the thread.

[Appolinaria]

My bad. The article linked to the study "Accidental Politicians: How Randomly Selected Legislators Can Improve Parliament Efficiency" at arXiv.org at the Cornell University Library. After I got through the conclusions, the Cornell logo was the last page I saw before starting the thread.

 

Yeah, I can totally see why that would happen...

[JohnB]

It's a nice idea in theory but lacks acceptance of a major basic principle. In any organisation authority should equal responsibility. You are giving people authority over the State, but are in no way holding them responsible for their actions when exercising that responsibility. Authority without adequate responsiblility is the problem, not just authority.

 

Add to that, if I'm reading the paper correctly, their basic premise for the model is badly flawed. The assumption is that one of the two partys will never vote for legislation that is to the detriment of both the party members and society in general while the other party will. This is patently absurd.

 

The description for Figure 1 says;

Fig. 1. Cipolla Diagram. Each point in this diagram, with coordinates in the intervals [−1, 1], represents a member of Parliament, according to his/her attitude to promote personal or social interests.

 

By placing party two into the -1,-1 square they are assuming that one party is motivated neither by promoting the personal interests of it's members nor by promoting the interests of society in general. While it certainly does happen (note the current slow suicide being committed by the Australian Left with their Carbon Tax) it is not intentional and both sides of politics can be equally stupid.

 

I also invite readers to consider what the researchers view as "intuitively" true on page 14;

The reason why Eq.(3) performs quite well can be easily grasped with the aid of intuition: since any majority, held by a Party larger than 50 %, brings no contribution to social welfare

 

It's also worthwhile noting that the study equates greater governmental "efficiency" with the more laws being passed. While this would be great news for the legal and accounting industries, everybody else would grind to a halt very quickly. Good governance is based upon the quality of and not the number of Bills passed.

 

Frankly I think the idea is quite poor and in this case is an exercise in fantasy based on a model that has no resemblance to reality.