What alternative ways can you think of to handle making legislation and passing laws that would negate the increasingly polarized political climate that is happening in more and more countries?

19 points

Randomly drawing citizen. Sure politics require some training, but it can be done on the job

Also, countries with proportional votes tend to force politicians to talk with each other more than countries with single representative per district.

Limiting elected official mandates to one or two. If you couldn’t do something in 10 years no reason to think you’ll do it latter

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Have you worked with people recently? A decent amount can’t learn anything and don’t take personal accountability. I guess that does sound like Congress.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

No. This sort of arrogant rubbish needs to be shut down.

In my job - a doctor - I routinely discuss difficult and complex topics with people of all backgrounds and education levels. With very few exceptions people are able to understand difficult topics.

It is my experience that the most difficult people to work with are not ordinary people but those who hold the opinion that everyone else is stupid.

With very few exceptions sortition and participatory democracy have worked well whenever they’ve been tried.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I disagree about sortition, but I appreciate pushing back on elitist, misanthropic bullshit like you did. I think elections with a strong ability to quickly recall faithless representatives is a much better solution because it involves the decision-making of the whole community, rather than a community member chosen at random.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I’m a branch manager in the trades and I see this daily. We’ve had to let go plenty because they wouldn’t take personal accountability for their actions and instead it was always someone else’s/thing’s fault. Maybe it’s just the current field I’m in. Who knows.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’ve toyed with the idea of staffing the House by sortition. Maybe not entirely random, pooling from State and local offices might be more practical, political efficacy is a skill and a little experience is valuable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Well my good-faith arguments would be direct democracy (i.e. everyone votes on every change) or ranked choice, but that has its own problems. However, you didn’t say it has to be serious. So I suggest a system that locks a chimpanzee on LSD into a room with signs (options) and blinking lights. Chimp starts rolling and points to the blinky light he likes (or hates) either way, your government is operating far more efficiently than hairless apes doing something that is apparently too much work, and most are just as ill-informed as acid-chimp. I honestly think acid chimp accidentally gives you a better (albeit random) set of values than capitalism/democracy ever has.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

You, I like you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

A bit is specific, but you can probably adapt them.

  1. Bring back pork spending, it’s over all cheaper to spend 100 million on some garbage than beating people into submission to pass something.
  2. Increase number of representatives significantly, makes some things less efficient, but also massively reduces the power of lobbying, and increases the power of localized activism.
  3. Limit length of allowed legislation per vote. Smaller more focused bills are ultimately better than sweeping legislation that attempts to address everything. More votes also makes working together easier with lower stakes and more opportunities to collaborate.
permalink
report
reply
9 points

Soviet Democracy. Workers elect delegates from among themselves, who can then be subject to instant recall elections at any time. Remove the “career politician” aspects from government.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Dunno, we’ve never seen anything go wrong with the Soviet system of representation before have we?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Definitely became overly-beaurocratized after WWII, but was generally far more democratic than Capitalist states

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Could work if you remove the democratic centralism part, which is an effect of one of the main reasons the USSR was undemocratic most of the time

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Almost every democratic structure practices Democratic Centralism, it just means the group is bound to the democratic results.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Just like many things in the USSR, It was perhaps that way in principle, but nefariously twisted in practice, where it means that everyone must vote whatever the elite thinks, majority requirements be damned. Like the ancient parable of Yu the Great choosing a successor, a dictating elite are bound to self-perpetuate and stray away from the proletariat, even if that’s what they were once.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

End FPTP. House of representatives actually representing the people instead of state or party. Senate still representing states but not parties.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Can you elaborate?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The US has an effectively two-party system. These parties make decisions based on the money they are given. In order to win votes, they find the most divisive issue to wedge a divide between their party and the other side. If they resolved these issues, they would have to create new ones so they are actually motivated to not compromise. There are many books and other writings about these problems.

As for the rest of the world, the US was dominant in the 20th century in power and influence. This meant that people who wanted power in other countries would look to the US way of doing politics for inspiration. I am not making all the connections for you, but I do want to mentioned how the parties in UK started hiring US campaign managers in the late 90s to help them gain power in their country. It clearly worked. Other countries have followed suit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I totally agree. But also the media has the same interest in dividing the people. They get more viewers that way. But how does ending FPTP, which I assume is first past the post voting, going to solve that. I have heard some say it would help move caddies to the center some. But I am not convinced it would move them much in most states.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.3K

    Posts

  • 296K

    Comments