Which do you suppose, would be a better way of retaining the most qualified public officials. Standard partisan elections based upon campaign promises... Or just randomly pick names out of the phone book?

And the first person that said “No thanks, hire the next guy…” – THAT’S who gets in the office.

I love that idea.

@Seek_Kolinahr “the first person that said “No thanks, hire the next guy…” – THAT’S who gets in the office.”

Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. Service is not mandatory.

They make the same salaries as the standard political rates. But I propose, after their term is up, they be disallowed to work for any lobbyist corporation. To of course prevent them from leaning towards the corporate agenda.

It wouldn’t stop lobbyists from lobbying. Everyone is entitled to free speech. But lobbyists would not seduce officials with post term benefits. Campaign contributions would disappear.

The incentive to accept office is purely one of duty and honor. And perhaps the revenue generated by a post term book deal?

Seems to be like the principle that directs jury selection.
And that is certainly a more serious and solemn responsibility than determining who gets a tax break, a free lunch, or a big pension for doing not much.

That never occurred to me @josie. It is jury selection style.

So if it’s fine to be judged by our peers… then perhaps we could be governed by them too?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

One thing is for certain. Few of us have “peers” who are living the life of power, perks and privilege in Washington DC.

It might work if there were some form of preemptive challenge like there is in jury selection. Otherwise, I think you’d find that you threw out a compromised system, and replaced it with an unmitigated disaster. There are a large number of elected offices where those holding them need to have the requisite job skills to perform their task. Legislators don’t have to have a JD degree, but a very substantial number of those elected do, and they serve to guide the legislative process. A congress filled with 535 Joe the Plumbers would be an accident constantly looking for the next place to happen.

I think the widespread public disdain of government is one of the forces likely to undermine the health of our nation. If there’s some way to turn that tide, I’d welcome it. But I don’t think random number generators are the way.

Oh man that’s a great point ET. So how about this…

Let’s say, you get picked for president. I get picked for Mayor. Josie gets picked for Governor. Assuming we accept, we don’t immediately take office. The incumbency literally has another year, or two? While we undertake a crash course in learning about the constitution, the way government is supposed to work, and foreign relations. In fact, we could get our paid training on the job as first assistant to the incumbent.

So office is held four years. The last two years of our term would be training the pre picked replacement. I wouldn’t even mind if the incumbent stuck around for another two years, for our first two, as advisor. So when we left office, we too would remain as advisor. It would literally be an eight year term altogether. Or cut it in half and turn it into a four year term total.

Either way, we are surrounded by experienced advisor and lead the replacement into office.

Keep in mind, that rich folk making a million bucks a year would be unlikely to accept their position in politics. Would be a dramatic pay cut. Besides, we need them to stay where they are running the economy strong.

Hey, for what any of those jobs pay, I’m on board for a year of cramming. :-)

Think of the hot babes we’d get! Let’s cram!

I’m now on board with the idea!

It reminds me of this.

“Mato Nagel, a sociologist in Germany, recently implemented Dunning and Kruger’s theories by computer-simulating a democratic election. In his mathematical model of the election, he assumed that voters’ own leadership skills were distributed on a bell curve — some were really good leaders, some, really bad, but most were mediocre — and that each voter was incapable of recognizing the leadership skills of a political candidate as being better than his or her own. When such an election was simulated, candidates whose leadership skills were only slightly better than average always won

Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they “effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders.”

A random sample of the population would at least be more representative than an elected government, and although you’d have a few in there who are even bigger idiots than some of the current congress (although, that’s hard to believe possible) you’d also find some who are far above average. Seems like a good idea to me.

Good points @Kropotkin.

I can imagine a standardized litmus test always available online for anyone who wanted to prep their chops in advance of potential selection. Let’s require them to pass the litmus test on basic constitutional principles, and government workflow before being allowed to take office.

If they couldn’t pass, then move along to the next selection. Some folks would have prepped in advance… and even if they never got selected, we could have them form a citizen watchdog group to monitor the performance of those in office.

Keep in mind, that even after passing the litmus test, your first two years are as first assistant to the current selection. Would practically be a Political Apprenticeship of sorts.

I’d go so far to say that no one who did not pass the litmus test could be taken seriously with any complaints about the way things are running. You want to complain… fine… qualify yourself first to make reasonable complaints. Cut the noise on the line.

@Kropotkin I would say that democracy’s advantage over monarchy or dictatorship is that it solves the problem of succession to rule better than monarchy or dictatorship do.

@ETpro What’s wrong with a good civil war or bloody coup? Are you some kind of liberal sissy? Scared of a bit of blood?

@Kropotkin Test me and find out. But dangerous though it might be to test my resolve, I have never been the sort to dance on a defeated foe’s grave.