Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCowley
If you replace congress with a bunch of randoms, they still won't tell legitimate advice apart from the network of corporate bull**** even if they're trying to.
My thinking is that throwing darts randomly > always missing on purpose. The system would still suck, but wouldn't it sometimes produce good outcomes? Whereas currently, it's guaranteed to produce **** outcomes every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey
a significant percentage of rich, successful and/or smart people would turn down this opportunity and very few poor, unsuccessful and/or dumb people would.
You wouldn't be allowed to decline. It's like jury duty, except you'd get better compensation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
the political views of many people here are absolutely horrifying to at least some of the other people here
I know this isn't a great response, but: at least they're genuine views. Our current politicians have next to no views or values, they're just puppets being pulled by people with invariably horrible views. At least the random people with horrible views would be mitigated by randoms with non-horrible views.
Quote:
While the overall idea of randomly selected people is an amusing one, it should be treated like the idea of what you'd do with the money if you hit the Powerball.
Well yeah and the chance of it being implemented is way worse than that of winning the Powerball. Of course if I'm going to dream up a better gov't, I can do better than this idea, but I just wanted to hear feedback on whether our current system is even better than complete randomness (which of
course is a bad idea, but as you might have guessed, I
really hate the current system). Even without completely dreaming, I can think of something better: campaign finance reform.
Only one of you made the correct vote, btw. The rest of you are lucky I made the poll anonymous!