GOP bid for control in Nevada raises fear of endless recalls - Polidicks

[QUOTE=GunFox;53116172]The morons in office are also often both malicious and power hungry. We'd be better off with random people who don't have the opportunity to ever solidify their power in office. People who know nothing of the "game" that is politics.[/QUOTE] ...who also know nothing about any of the issues they're deciding on remotely. "Get ready, person who's been in waste management his whole life and who's received no training whatsoever to handle these issues! You've been randomly selected -- with no choice to refuse -- to decide on issues you've never heard of before. Also, you won't be in this job long enough to learn anything about it before you leave." [editline]8th February 2018[/editline] Also, your job will just [i]let you back in[/i] after we forcibly remove you from it for a year. They'll just hire you back and definitely won't have already replaced you. Have fun!

[QUOTE=geel9;53116181]...who also know nothing about any of the issues they're deciding on remotely. "Get ready, person who's been in waste management his whole life and who's received no training whatsoever to handle these issues! You've been randomly selected -- with no choice to refuse -- to decide on issues you've never heard of before. Also, you won't be in this job long enough to learn anything about it before you leave." [editline]8th February 2018[/editline] Also, your job will just [i]let you back in[/i] after we forcibly remove you from it for a year. They'll just hire you back and definitely won't have already replaced you. Have fun![/QUOTE] As opposed to the current situation where power hungry morons are put into power to have control over stuff they know nothing about anyways? Then we give them more than enough time to solidify their power base and funding. We decide elections based in large part on who can throw the most money at them. You are tasked with making decisions that affect everyone in the country on topics that vary more broadly than any single individual could possibly ever know. The only people who ever have any business of being elected to office should have a PhD, JD, or MD after their name and even that is pretty questionable for a lot of folks. Yes. They will let you back in. Just like with jury duty. I think our economy will survive.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53116202]As opposed to the current situation where power hungry morons are put into power to have control over stuff they know nothing about anyways? Then we give them more than enough time to solidify their power base and funding. We decide elections based in large part on who can throw the most money at them. You are tasked with making decisions that affect everyone in the country on topics that vary more broadly than any single individual could possibly ever know. The only people who ever have any business of being elected to office should have a PhD, JD, or MD after their name and even that is pretty questionable for a lot of folks.[/QUOTE] Sounds like you have an idea for what might qualify as an eligible individual to hold office. Perhaps your energy would be better spent advocating for better education on how to select our representatives. Better than a system that will literally rip people from their lives for a year to fulfill a position that they've had no training or even put any though into and plop them back into their lives with the expectation that they can just "adjust" and find a new job.

[QUOTE=geel9;53116208]Sounds like you have an idea for what might qualify as an eligible individual to hold office. Perhaps your energy would be better spent advocating for better education on how to select our representatives. Better than a system that will literally rip people from their lives for a year to fulfill a position that they've had no training or even put any though into and plop them back into their lives with the expectation that they can just "adjust" and find a new job.[/QUOTE] I absolutely do. They just won't be elected to office in great enough numbers to matter Then you have other problems like minority representation and access to education. Instead a system where educated folks are senators and random people are reps would allow for greater representation without stupidity reigning supreme. Which was literally how the country was built to function. Other fun side effects: -Without elections, there is no reason to do anything other than what they view is right. -Without election funding, they are not beholden to a political party. You could have a branch of government operate largely without effective party influence. -The parties would have less of a reason to gravitate towards the extreme voices. -secret voting means that even if you were to bribe someone, they could just laugh and vote however they wanted anyways. -no party affiliation means who would you even corrupt? You could wind up bribing people who would vote your way anyhow.

[QUOTE=geel9;53116158]How do you account for the fact that you'd very likely appoint morons to most positions[/QUOTE] You call them morons, I call them civilians being granted the privilege of public service, and being compensated handsomely for their service. Give them a $100,000 salary, and a $50,000 lump sum upon completion of their term, and most people will jump for the opportunity. Although it would be a major disruption to their life, there are already protections that exist for similar situations. Eg employers in Australia cannot fire or cut conditions of their employees if they are selected for jury duty, or if they enlist in the Army Reserve. And even if ‘morons’ were selected, it’s not like they could do much damage. Eg if the only influence the upper house could have over the legislative process would be to veto lower house bills with a two-thirds supermajority minimum, that can limit the damage the upper house can do while still keeping government accountable. But of course the upper house would be useful for other things - committees, estimates hearings etc. I think most people would engage very well with the job if given the chance to learn about it and government in-general. And I also think that it would encourage the entire population to better contemplate political matters, given that they may be expected to serve one day, or that they may have already served and would go on to share their experience with others.

[QUOTE=BF;53116244]You call them morons, I call them civilians being granted the privilege of public service, and being compensated handsomely for their service. [/QUOTE] What? These are not mutually exclusive? [quote=BF] Give them a $100,000 salary, and a $50,000 lump sum upon completion of their term, and most people will jump for the opportunity. [/quote] But if they don't, fuck you, do it anyways. [quote=BF] Eg employers in Australia cannot fire or cut conditions of their employees if they are selected for jury duty, or if they enlist in the Army Reserve. [/quote] So, you propose that a company -- regardless of size or economic standing -- just keep a position filled for an entire year in reserve for some person who didn't have any choice or notice. So, let's say it's a pretty critical role. Now they have to hire someone to fill that position. Turns out they're actually way better than the old person. Oh no, now the old person's back, and you [i]have to give them their job back.[/i] Sorry, new person, get fucked. That's to say nothing about jobs that require a significant amount of time or money invested into each employee. [quote] I think most people would engage very well with the job if given the chance to learn about it and government in-general. And I also think that it would encourage the entire population to better contemplate political matters, given that they may be expected to serve one day, or that they may have already served and would go on to share their experience with others.[/quote] Yeah, just like how our Juries are all well-educated on the law and what it takes to be a proper juror. Oh wait, the vast majority of Americans don't have a good goddamn of a clue how the law works and as it turns out, they're usually terrible jurors.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53115986]This exists. It's called [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition"]sortition[/URL]. It's what the ancient Greeks used, and it worked fairly well for them for their brief time of not being conquered.[/QUOTE] Ancient society was considerably less complex than our own. I have no doubts that an average Joe selected to hold office will be thoroughly manipulated by lawyers and businessmen. Not to mention the national security concerns with giving so many people access to state secrets.

[QUOTE=geel9;53116262]What? These are not mutually exclusive? But if they don't, fuck you, do it anyways. So, you propose that a company -- regardless of size or economic standing -- just keep a position filled for an entire year in reserve for some person who didn't have any choice or notice. So, let's say it's a pretty critical role. Now they have to hire someone to fill that position. Turns out they're actually way better than the old person. Oh no, now the old person's back, and you [i]have to give them their job back.[/i] Sorry, new person, get fucked. That's to say nothing about jobs that require a significant amount of time or money invested into each employee. Yeah, just like how our Juries are all well-educated on the law and what it takes to be a proper juror. Oh wait, the vast majority of Americans don't have a good goddamn of a clue how the law works and as it turns out, they're usually terrible jurors.[/QUOTE] Yes, there are problems with people being expected to give up a year of their life for public service. But that is conscription, and every contemporary western society that has ever had conscription has survived that. And unlike military conscription, the public service is a noble one to serve in that can add value to resumes, and life in-general. You are being awfully pessimistic. If so many people in the world are supposedly morons as you pretty much claim, why even bother have democracy? Why do we let these morons elect our representatives? Furthermore, what gives you the right to claim that so many people are clueless or morons, yet implicitly exclude yourself from being among them?

[quote=BF] Yes, there are problems with people being expected to give up a year of their life for public service. But that is conscription, and every contemporary western society that has ever had conscription has survived that. And unlike military conscription, the public service is a noble one to serve in that can add value to resumes, and life in-general. [/quote] I think you're operating under the flawed assumption that we both agree that conscription is in any way an acceptable thing. [QUOTE=BF;53116282] You are being awfully pessimistic. If so many people in the world are supposedly morons as you pretty much claim, why even bother have democracy?[/QUOTE] We have democracy not because we assume that people are intelligent but that they are self-serving, and the aggregate of self-serving (on a voting basis) would [i]ideally[/i], across an entire nation, work out "okay". [quote] Furthermore, what gives you the right to claim that so many people are clueless or morons, yet implicitly exclude yourself from being one of them? [/quote] Donald Trump has an approval rating above 0%.

[QUOTE=Talon 733;53115998]I'd love to see the data behind that claim[/QUOTE] I don't have a link because phoneposting but Gallup has him a 90% approval amongst Republicans.