Why even have elections?

You could do so, and I think I would support such measures, but that doesn't solve the whole problem, though. To give one concrete example, defence contractors have strategically placed their plants all over the United States for one purpose: they can not only buy votes for whichever candidate they like, but they can hold politicians at ransom for their votes in congress once they're in. ''Do as we say or we'll close down this enormous plant in your district and open it up somewhere else.'' If you're not up for re-election, this threat is a lot more empty.
I kindof feel like sortition is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I mean, yes it would solve many problems with corruption and bribery but it would also cause many more problems.
Imagine a political election with 5 complete idiots and one highly qualified individual. With todays rules if the highly qualified individual can make it through the campaign cycle he/she would most likely win. If we used sortition, statistics tells us he/she would most likely lose.
Seems shortsighted. Either we would have to get a whole lot stricter on who was allowed to run or we would end up in very bad positions. Have you noticed some of the "politicians" running lately?
 
Why even have elections? The first is that since sortition does not discriminate while voters do, voting will lead to better candidates in office... Another counter argument is that since candidates aren't elected, they're not accountable to their constituency. At least in the United States, approval of congress is absolutely terrible and yet turnover within the members of congress is almost 0. Accountability? Please.

What exactly are you referring to? Presidential, Congressional, or state candidates? What do you mean by 'candidates aren't even elected'? All potential candidates for any state or federal position are elected. As far as the President, the Electoral College elects the President of the United States, not the people. That is why America is not a true Democracy, it is a Republic. So, individual votes doesn't really count for much (shit).

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states.
 
To give one concrete example, defence contractors have strategically placed their plants all over the United States for one purpose: they can not only buy votes for whichever candidate they like, but they can hold politicians at ransom for their votes in congress once they're in.

Defense Contractors and others don't buy votes. The U.S. is not a corrupt Third World country where that happens. The money is donated for the individual's race for a seat. And no, those that donate do not hold politicians at ransom if elected. Politicians can do as they please once they are in office. Just look at promises made by the last three Presidents prior to them being elected. Many of those promises never came through. That is always the case.

* I see you are from Finland.
 
Or just have legitimate elections where all adult legal citizens of said country vote and whoever wins, wins.

You're saying that whoever gets the most votes should win! You said you wanted Hillary to win! Turn in your MAGA hat!
 
Why not have a lottery like the ancient Athenians? There are some common arguments against this approach that I don't find very convincing. The first is that since sortition does not discriminate while voters do, voting will lead to better candidates in office. To which I can only respond

<Huh2>

Another counter argument is that since candidates aren't elected, they're not accountable to their constituency. At least in the United States, approval of congress is absolutely terrible and yet turnover within the members of congress is almost 0. Accountability? Please.

On the other hand, some of the biggest problems with the current political system are simply not even coherent ideas within sortition. For example, gerrymandering can no longer exist. Corruption and lobbying are non-sensical given that the person you're lobbying isn't running for election. Moreover, members of congress/parliament can't be muscled by industry in their constituency by threatening to move jobs elsewhere, since again, they're not running for election.

So again, if power corrupts, why have corruptible offices? Why have elections?
You only have to look at the Trump White House to see why having people with no experience or background in the job are a bad idea.
 
You only have to look at the Trump White House to see why having people with no experience or background in the job are a bad idea.

See, the thing is, there was a candidate with experience and background in the job on offer, and yet....
 
You're saying that whoever gets the most votes should win! You said you wanted Hillary to win! Turn in your MAGA hat!
I wouldn't want that sociopathic criminal hag to lead a flag football team letalone the United States.
 
See, the thing is, there was a candidate with experience and background in the job on offer, and yet....
Don't over-simplify. I'm not saying that things are ideal in any event, rather that they are worse when people who have no idea what they're doing and don't care are in charge.
 
So what you're saying is Hillary should have won because she had millions more votes.
The system stated above in your post is probably better than what we currently have, but we’d still get the same old shit candidates to vote for. Voting based off of policies with nameless candidates would probably work the best and get rid of this “team” mentality.
 
What exactly are you referring to? Presidential, Congressional, or state candidates? What do you mean by 'candidates aren't even elected'? All potential candidates for any state or federal position are elected. As far as the President, the Electoral College elects the President of the United States, not the people. That is why America is not a true Democracy, it is a Republic. So, individual votes doesn't really count for much (shit).

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states.

The candidates in sortition are not elected.

Defense Contractors and others don't buy votes. The U.S. is not a corrupt Third World country where that happens. The money is donated for the individual's race for a seat. And no, those that donate do not hold politicians at ransom if elected. Politicians can do as they please once they are in office. Just look at promises made by the last three Presidents prior to them being elected. Many of those promises never came through. That is always the case.

* I see you are from Finland.

First of all, earlier in the thread I specified what I meant by ''buying votes,'' in noting that money is paid in campaign contributions. And yes, politicians can vote as they like once they're elected, but on the topic of defence, it's peculiar that both sides trip overthemselves to vote in favour of increased spending, wouldn't you say? It's because their influence isn't just limited to campaign contributions. They can do things like threaten mass layoffs to make sure candidates fall in line or are voted out.
 
Don't over-simplify. I'm not saying that things are ideal in any event, rather that they are worse when people who have no idea what they're doing and don't care are in charge.

I'm just saying the electoral system is not the safeguard against incompetence that people would like to think it is.

 
Sometimes I think citizens should be required to pass a sat-style test or something to be qualified to vote. Bachelor’s degree or above (in real fields) can get a pass automatically.
 
The candidates in sortition are not elected.

The only 'sortition' used in the United States that I know of is how the law court juries are formed.
In the topic of defense… They can do things like threaten mass layoffs to make sure candidates fall in line or are voted out.

Or the defense contractor can be replaced by another competitor.
 
Why not have a lottery like the ancient Athenians? There are some common arguments against this approach that I don't find very convincing. The first is that since sortition does not discriminate while voters do, voting will lead to better candidates in office. To which I can only respond

<Huh2>

Another counter argument is that since candidates aren't elected, they're not accountable to their constituency. At least in the United States, approval of congress is absolutely terrible and yet turnover within the members of congress is almost 0. Accountability? Please.

On the other hand, some of the biggest problems with the current political system are simply not even coherent ideas within sortition. For example, gerrymandering can no longer exist. Corruption and lobbying are non-sensical given that the person you're lobbying isn't running for election. Moreover, members of congress/parliament can't be muscled by industry in their constituency by threatening to move jobs elsewhere, since again, they're not running for election.

So again, if power corrupts, why have corruptible offices? Why have elections?
can you imagine the shitshow if cleetus from w virginia got elected, it would fix a lot of problems if they took the money out of it and each party got a set amount. also, an iq test wouldnt go amiss.
 
Why not have a lottery like the ancient Athenians? There are some common arguments against this approach that I don't find very convincing. The first is that since sortition does not discriminate while voters do, voting will lead to better candidates in office. To which I can only respond

<Huh2>

Another counter argument is that since candidates aren't elected, they're not accountable to their constituency. At least in the United States, approval of congress is absolutely terrible and yet turnover within the members of congress is almost 0. Accountability? Please.

On the other hand, some of the biggest problems with the current political system are simply not even coherent ideas within sortition. For example, gerrymandering can no longer exist. Corruption and lobbying are non-sensical given that the person you're lobbying isn't running for election. Moreover, members of congress/parliament can't be muscled by industry in their constituency by threatening to move jobs elsewhere, since again, they're not running for election.

So again, if power corrupts, why have corruptible offices? Why have elections?
We kinda need lawmakers who know law, and people with educations in general. Isn't that enough on its own? Uneducated and ignorant people chosen at random would be far less ethical.
 
I think there's a kind of hysteria about campaign finance. It really doesn't benefit candidates that much, and it doesn't cause them to change their positions on issues. It's not comparable to bribes.

As I've said before, I'd support doing something to limit it (not ending democracy) because it's hugely wasteful rather than because it's effective.
 
I actually think society might be better served with a lottery and the idea that 'all citizens are available for a turn at this public service'. The party system is completely broken and the voters have so little faith in it that a majority often just stay home in all levels of elections.

put in a lottery system similar to jury duty, with structure and rules that dictate they must form certain committees, etc and I don't see us being worse off than we are with the current party systems.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,846
Messages
55,311,866
Members
174,734
Latest member
Bob Gnuheart
Back
Top