I am starting to think we should draw lots to elect Representatives or Senators.

[literatim]

I think either the House or Senate (not both) should be decided randomly from every American citizen. Then give the option to vote them out or keep them every so many years.

[nate895]

What? Explain, this doesn't make sense to me.

[literatim]

What? Explain, this doesn't make sense to me.


Drawing of lots is a lottery in which participants blindly choose objects (such as stones, straws, coins, or dice) in order to make a random decision. It is won by luck, akin to tossing a coin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawing_of_lots

[nate895]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawing_of_lots

That's what didn't make sense. We should give our right to vote based on a lottery system?

[thomaspaine23]

I have long thought the House should be done this way (ala jury duty)
It would mean that the house represents Main street to a large degree.

It would also break the current two party system in the people's house.


I also think that the Senate should go back to being appointed by the states.
In addition, I would put the Senators on the hook for ANY budget deficits....

Thus the house would provide for the common man's concern, and the Senate would be cautious of overspending.

[literatim]

That's what didn't make sense. We should give our right to vote based on a lottery system?

What?


I have long thought the House should be done this way (ala jury duty)
It would mean that the house represents Main street to a large degree.

It would also break the current two party system in the people's house.


I also think that the Senate should go back to being appointed by the states.
In addition, I would put the Senators on the hook for ANY budget deficits....

Thus the house would provide for the common man's concern, and the Senate would be cautious of overspending.

Senate has no constitutional authority to create a bill with any cost to it.

[nate895]

What?



Senate has no constitutional authority to create a bill with any cost to it.

Oh now I get it, you want the House or Senate to be selected via lottery. I oppose that because you can wind up with communists, idiots, fascists, and all other sorts of disgusting people in office. At least now they aren't total idiots, and put on a facade that they aren't communists or fascist.

[mediahasyou]

The tyranny of the majority is still there.

What gives you the right to tell another what to do? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM)

[jbuttell]

What?



Senate has no constitutional authority to create a bill with any cost to it.

Is that right though? I was reading the portion of the Constitution recently (Article 1, Section 7) where it states:

"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."

They're being deceptive here. They're not raising taxes through normal means, to aquire the $850billion... so is it really 'raising revenue' ? Is borrowing more money considered raising revenue? If so, I suppose what you're saying is correct.

[SeanEdwards]

The city state of Athens had a body of representative legislators selected by lottery during its "golden age". All free citizens were eligble to be chosen by this lottery to serve a term in their equivalent of congress.

[evilfunnystuff]

a lottery would be easyer to fix than an election

[TruckinMike]

Why don't we just go back to the way our founders wanted it. One Representative for every 30,000 citizens in the House,
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative (according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons) - US Constitutionand The state legislature chooses its own Senators. I think that the people would be more involved with government, and their reps would be much more in touch with the people. Of Course the Congress would be HUGE. 10,000 seats in the house. But with todays technology it would not be a problem. And I like the NO direct vote for the Senators, they would not get entrenched and remain in power for all of eternity. If they were crap the state legislature would boot them out.

Lets get back to our roots and follow our founders advice.

TMike

[nate895]

Why don't we just go back to the way our founders wanted it. One Representative for every 30,000 citizens in the House, and The state legislature chooses its own Senators. I think that the people would be more involved with government, and their reps would be much more in touch with the people. Of Course the Congress would be HUGE. 10,000 seats in the house. But with todays technology it would not be a problem. And I like the NO direct vote for the Senators, they would not get entrenched and remain in power for all of eternity. If they were crap the state legislature would boot them out.

Lets get back to our roots and follow our founders advice.

TMike

I think we should increase the amount of Representatives, but not to one for every 30,000, probably one for every 50,000 is good. There was an amendment to the Constitution proposed at the time of the Bill of Rights that provided for one for every 50,000 once there were too many representatives.

[sratiug]

Why don't we just go back to the way our founders wanted it. One Representative for every 30,000 citizens in the House, and The state legislature chooses its own Senators. I think that the people would be more involved with government, and their reps would be much more in touch with the people. Of Course the Congress would be HUGE. 10,000 seats in the house. But with todays technology it would not be a problem. And I like the NO direct vote for the Senators, they would not get entrenched and remain in power for all of eternity. If they were crap the state legislature would boot them out.

Lets get back to our roots and follow our founders advice.

TMike

If the republican and democratic machines could be defeated in the states, repealing the 17th amendment would go a long way toward fixing our country. States wouldn't put up with federal mandates bankrupting them anymore.

A lottery for Supreme Court justices would be my dream. Most lawyers are too ignorant and or stupid to serve in that capacity, as is easily seen from history.

[TruckinMike]

I think we should increase the amount of Representatives, but not to one for every 30,000, probably one for every 50,000 is good. There was an amendment to the Constitution proposed at the time of the Bill of Rights that provided for one for every 50,000 once there were too many representatives.

Yes, 6000 reps works for me. 1 Rep/50,000 would have the same basic effect. To bad the amendment didn't make it through.


TMike

EDIT: Another good point about this concept is that it is harder to corrupt the Legislative body as a whole.

[Micah Dardar]

I don't know about the lottery, but the idea of increasing the number of reps is interesting. The rep would be more in touch with those around him, and could, in today's time, read bills and vote electronically from his own home in order to reduce travel costs. He wouldn't want to piss off his neighbors, either.

[nate895]

I don't know about the lottery, but the idea of increasing the number of reps is interesting. The rep would be more in touch with those around him, and could, in today's time, read bills and vote electronically from his own home in order to reduce travel costs. He wouldn't want to piss off his neighbors, either.

I don't trust electronic voting, but we can easily convert some old and forgotten sports arena in the DC area to the meeting place.

[Micah Dardar]

I don't trust electronic voting, but we can easily convert some old and forgotten sports arena in the DC area to the meeting place.

Well, 6000 votes are a lot easier to verify than the few million that may vote in normal elections. I'm not talking about voting machines. I'm talking about password protected internet voting. Congress critters' votes could be tallied and verified real-time.

[nate895]

Well, 6000 votes are a lot easier to verify than the few million that may vote in normal elections. I'm not talking about voting machines. I'm talking about password protected internet voting. Congress critters' votes could be tallied and verified real-time.

Who is to say that they will not let someone else take their vote? Who is to say that somehow, someone was able to take the password that they have? Who is to say that some computer program would not alter the results?

[jbuttell]

Who is to say that they will not let someone else take their vote? Who is to say that somehow, someone was able to take the password that they have? Who is to say that some computer program would not alter the results?


Well, generally their voting is transparent, so I dont' think theres much risk from someone stealing their votes or modifying it. Their work in the committees may require them to be present at times though.