Topic: Random selection of the representants. - page 4. (Read 4941 times)

Yah, good point.  Our good overlord Stalin once said that it's not the winner of the popular vote who wins the elections... it's the one who counts the votes... and I guess this applies to random sampling as well.

Bingo, 100%.

This is a great idea (OP), one championed by the famous Democritus.  I have not found that his government "by the people" had reference to what we call "elections".   

Random selection has a lot of advantages.  Random sampling is a great way to sample an unknown distribution (e.g. political opinion).
Consider for example evaluation of an integral of y=f(x) over a range dx with the monte carlo technique with k sampling points.  Compare that to evaluating the integral by taking Mean(floor(y))*dx.  You don't need to get k very large before the monte carlo integral is most likely way better.

The logisitics and corruptibility behind each method (election or random) are not simple however and the details here are probably most important.  There are of course different ways to run an election or a random sampling, I am encouraged by new ideas in these ventures.   

   

What did I say? Stockholm Syndrome.

Now, going back to topic.  So, what other benefits does random selection of thugs have over electing liars?

Hahaha.  Did anyone else read this raging, intolerant, abusive reply and was instantly reminded of the following GIF?


Blahblahblah seems to have some anger management issues.  I've seen him constantly insulting and hurling abuse at people who think differently from him -- quite a lot of his participation in this forum consists on that.  He seems to have a finely honed bigotry for people who express views different from him, ranging from calling his targets "tards and bullshitters" to telling them "go fuck yourself".  I wish some of us could help him adjust his reactions to new ideas, but clearly he's not in an emotional condition or state that lends itself to listening calmly.

In short: it appears that blahblahblah has chosen this forum to be his pet playground where he angrily throws sand at everyone, without consequences for him, in pure Internet Brave fashion.

He is now on my ignore list.  I encourage everyone else who appreciates polite conversation not punctuated by abusive tirades to just ignore him as well (as I'm sure quite a few people already did).

Have a great day!  :-)

Now, steering this convo back on topic.

Myrkul, I fully agree with you.  The damage that people in power make would be indeed significantly limited if the people who get to be in power were fully randomized.  That alone would have the impact of diminishing the amount of good-for-nothing-but-lying sociopaths in power, since we wouldn't be doing a stupid ritual to select the best liars every X years.

I don't know what you mean by "your case".  As far as I remember, I came back to this thread and you were accusing certain people of "cynical name-calling" -- off-topic for this thread -- when they tell the truth.

Now, in case you somehow managed to post without reading what we're talking about here: what we're saying here is that democracy is lousy.  Having accepted that premise, some of us are proposing a better mechanism to select who will have maniacal powers, and some of us are saying that we'd better off not giving maniacal powers to anyone at all.

That is the topic of this thread.

If you want to stick to the topic, your contributions are welcome.  IF instead you just barged in to yell "CYNICAL NAMECALLERS DERP", then please use the door and remove yourself from here.

Thanks!  :-)

This is a good concept and I always thought it might help resist corruption. The problem with it I figure tho, is it will turn from a back door bribery game to an in your face violence and killing opposition kind of game as randomly selected representatives act against what they know to be existing powerful interests. Sooner or later people will begin to not want to participate and or will be coerced into not changing the status quo.

"Communication" aka "give me free money or else someone will put you in a cage".

Somebody answer the phone!

TIL: I never knew truth could be "slanderous".

Your consistent defense of the government coercion paradigm seems like:
a) Defeatism and
b) a seriously bad case of Stockholm Syndrome.

We're just calling it like it is. They're the mafia with a flag.

That said, a rapid and random shuffling of the thugs would keep them from doing much damage.

I feel like this is the most important and key aspect of the whole conversation.  If the goal of voting is to empower such gang of thugs (it is), then the conversation should be about removing the need for these thugs, rather than finding a new way to select new thugs for the gang.

Yes the jury is the closest thing i know in application at a wide scale.
I guess some nice diagram would help. If i have courage i ll do it...

Why do you want a gang of thugs to rob you and threaten you with violence?

Hello, i'm not american (Sorry for my bad english) but i'm curious to have opinion of others about a subject i find intresting.

If this has already been debated ( probable) please refer e to the thread, i do not know what to search for...
I always had a problem with elections because

1) REPRESENTATION                     : i never feel like voting for someone who represent me.
2) CORRUPTION/STRATEGY            : They keep lying as this apear to be a good strategy to be elected. As a general thing, Strategy looks like a key point on election. Just like in a war. They want to be elected, re elected ect (or their political faction) this is a big corruption of the rôle they should play ...
3) SUPERFICIALITY                       : after voting you are powerless. You might vote for such a big bad ass, just like i gave a few btc to nefario because glbse looks like working ... voting is a one shot game that left you powerless.
4) GRANULARITY                          : I feel like giving more power than i am willing to. This problem is still hard to think of for me, maybe it s just a consequence of point 2...

So i do not vote very often.
Then i understand that what i do not like is aristocracy, wich is i think the root of those problems. For me there is a big contradiction by saying that we are in democracy and having 10% of women in the parliament for example.
I do not see our "modern democracy" so far from the chinese system.  Yes we do vote, no we are not represented.

A few time ago i read about this idea of random representant.
So i keep thinking about the idea of a new parliament chamber.
1) This chamber would have X representant selected RANDOMLY (X would have to be big enough to represent the country).
2) Those representants would be selected every, lets say 2 month. So the chamber changes its members VERY REGULARY. To maintain stability the representant would be changed like 12% per week (so that in 2 month every body has changed without brutal shift)
3) The representant can refuse to participe for any reason. They cannot be fired or anything because of this task. They wil receive a minimum salary for this task


Point 1 would solve the REPRESENTATION problem, while point 2 solves the STRATEGY and SUPERFICIALITY.
CORRUPTION is left half solved as those representant would not seek reelection but they can still be influenced/ helped by lobbys... The rotation of point 2 will probably limit the damages of any external corruption.
point 3 is important to keep ppl free. Probably because of point 3 ( minimum salary/ possibility to refuse) the poor might be more represented than the rich. Maybe not so bad?


This is just some kind of naïves thinks on the subject. Do you feel bad too when you go vote?

[EDIT] This is inspired about a few actual french thinkers, mainly Etienne Chouard