“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.” - Thomas Jefferson
I think my primary objection to a congress that resembles a jury is that we'd need to figure out how to prevent a tragedy of the commons. The primary way that new legislation is effectively debated is by special interest groups that provide a subjective, but usually detailed analysis on legislation. For example, if you want to pass new emissions legislations, you solicit opinions from the auto making industry, manufactures, and environmentalists. They all put together their best arguments so that you can understand the effect the proposed legislation may have on each interest group.
Then, prior to making a decision, you also weigh how much the legislation will cost. Is there enough budget? If not, is it worth increasing taxes to support it?
So with these moving pieces, how then do you prevent every jury from voting to decrease taxes or increase social security benefits for example? Wouldn't every jury decrease taxes and increase government benefits?
In my studies of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, William Patterson, etc. they certainly feared a pure democratic system because they were concerned with "mob rule" a phrase which meant government that is persuaded by public opinion and emotion.
I think I'd definitely like to chat through how a system like Democracy+ would limit the power of the media and public opinion. For example, what would have happened if in the wake of the George Floyd death the congress passed legislation to encourage the defunding of the police force. That goes great until organized crime increases and public safety diminishes. Suddenly there's a 2 mass shootings in Los Angeles County within just a few days and now congress if refunding police departments and adding metal detectors to every school. These are extreme examples, but you get the gist of the concern.
I hate that politicians today seem to be untrustworthy. Even very good people who I personally have known who have run and been elected to government deal with some terrible side effects of elections. Every mistake you've every made is researched, analyzed, and published. Your family is followed and photographed. The media wants copies of your taxes. Did you pay an illegal immigrant who mowed your lawn? Do you drive an electric car? Do you use reusable grocery bags? Do you take your hat off during the pledge of allegiance?
I think randomly selected legislators like a jury is an intriguing way to handle some of the terrible side effects of elections.
There's definitely something there, but I think you'd also have to set it up in the right context. Even juries are given rules and there is a judge to enforce them. If you're familiar with jury selection, you probably understand these rules better than I do. And I think there'd be even more incentive to "stack the jury" when the legislature is addressing controversial policies. So I'd love to hear more about how you handle the shortcomings of juries at a massive scale like the national legislature where they are voting on policies the affect trillion dollar industries with lots of resources to "influence" votes.
I think my primary objection to a congress that resembles a jury is that we'd need to figure out how to prevent a tragedy of the commons. The primary way that new legislation is effectively debated is by special interest groups that provide a subjective, but usually detailed analysis on legislation. For example, if you want to pass new emissions legislations, you solicit opinions from the auto making industry, manufactures, and environmentalists. They all put together their best arguments so that you can understand the effect the proposed legislation may have on each interest group.
Then, prior to making a decision, you also weigh how much the legislation will cost. Is there enough budget? If not, is it worth increasing taxes to support it?
So with these moving pieces, how then do you prevent every jury from voting to decrease taxes or increase social security benefits for example? Wouldn't every jury decrease taxes and increase government benefits?
In my studies of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, William Patterson, etc. they certainly feared a pure democratic system because they were concerned with "mob rule" a phrase which meant government that is persuaded by public opinion and emotion.
I think I'd definitely like to chat through how a system like Democracy+ would limit the power of the media and public opinion. For example, what would have happened if in the wake of the George Floyd death the congress passed legislation to encourage the defunding of the police force. That goes great until organized crime increases and public safety diminishes. Suddenly there's a 2 mass shootings in Los Angeles County within just a few days and now congress if refunding police departments and adding metal detectors to every school. These are extreme examples, but you get the gist of the concern.
I hate that politicians today seem to be untrustworthy. Even very good people who I personally have known who have run and been elected to government deal with some terrible side effects of elections. Every mistake you've every made is researched, analyzed, and published. Your family is followed and photographed. The media wants copies of your taxes. Did you pay an illegal immigrant who mowed your lawn? Do you drive an electric car? Do you use reusable grocery bags? Do you take your hat off during the pledge of allegiance?
I think randomly selected legislators like a jury is an intriguing way to handle some of the terrible side effects of elections.
There's definitely something there, but I think you'd also have to set it up in the right context. Even juries are given rules and there is a judge to enforce them. If you're familiar with jury selection, you probably understand these rules better than I do. And I think there'd be even more incentive to "stack the jury" when the legislature is addressing controversial policies. So I'd love to hear more about how you handle the shortcomings of juries at a massive scale like the national legislature where they are voting on policies the affect trillion dollar industries with lots of resources to "influence" votes.
Hi Nathan,
I just linked to your SLT article from Equality-by-Lot. Please drop by and join the conversation.
https://equalitybylot.com/2022/08/13/nathan-jack-lets-end-elections