this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
107 points (93.5% liked)

politics

18924 readers
3841 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Here's an idea: Every election, you randomly choose ~5-10 people for each seat, and these are your candidates. If you're not selected, you can't run. To make sure people actually want to be elected, let's also make the salary really enticing for the representatives. Maybe, just maybe, let's also make the incumbent one of the candidates, so you can get re-elected if you do a good job and people like you (but I'm really not sure about this part).

I think it'd help make the composition of Parliament mirror more closely that of the general population.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

Sortition was used in ancient Athens for a while for exactly this reason

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

randomly choose ~5-10 people for each seat, and these are your candidates

It would be better if the representative themselves were randomly chosen, rather than candidates.

The problem is that elections are fundamentally undemocratic. Oligarchs, elites, the rich - whatever you call our aristocrats - will always be better placed to influence others, win elections and then represent their narrow interests against the majority. As they do now.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

That was my first thought, actually. I've since come to realize that a completely random selection may not properly reflect the will of the population, and some electoral input is desireable.

What you're referring to is the influence of money in politics, and my answer to that would be pretty simple: 100% forbid all advertising in elections. Instead, candidates are provided screen time on public television & radio (CBC / Radio-Canada), a website where they can present their platform, and some form of print media that gets distributed in all homes. They can only advertise through these channels, and nowhere else. If a journalist wants to interview a candidate, they also have to give equal coverage to their opponents.

Basically, money would be useless as a tool for winning elections. Electoral spending is already closely scrutinized here in Canada, this would only bring that even further.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I wish more people thought like this and realized that as humans, we can make whatever system we want. We have infinite possibilities and surely can find systems that do what we desire.

That’s the whole point of technology. Out of all the possibilities, we found the design that turns light into electricity. If only we realized politics can work the same way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah it should be in between a draft and jury duty. I think there are plenty of really bright people who are smart enough to stay away from politics. It’s not just the working class who aren’t represented but also scientists, engineers, young people, or minorities. Two year terms, can serve multiple terms. Very good idea.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


There is a coordinated, nationwide effort to roll back child labor laws, part of a broader campaign to concentrate even more power into the hands of employers.

One way to understand this fight to roll back labor laws is as a function of conservative ideology and a reflection of the views of the social base of Republican politics.

Now there is a case to make that Congress needs more staff and higher pay — that to attract the best candidates for federal office, compensation should be competitive with salaries in private-sector fields of similar power, prestige and responsibility.

The main point, however, is that Congress is at least structured in a way that would make it possible for a working-class person to do the job without jeopardizing his or her financial security (although this still leaves us with the problem of actually winning a seat).

Setting aside the difficulty of getting elected — the necessity of raising money from wealthy friends, family and acquaintances that most Americans simply do not have — if a working-class person of modest means somehow won a state legislative position, she would almost certainly have to sacrifice a large part of her income to do so.

The problem is that all of this runs counter to our ingrained hostility to politics and politicians — our cynical distrust, even contempt, for people who choose to make a career of elected office.


The original article contains 955 words, the summary contains 235 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

This article is an abuse of the source data. "Working class" here is closer to manual laborer and excludes teachers, farm workers, military, emergency services, nurses, law enforcement, and others. The data is also fairly noisy, with typos and 2% of values being empty affecting the calculation.

To conclude that anyone not "working class" by this definition is "upper-class" is absurd. I guess for some it is hard to imagine the lofty former assistant manager at Burger King (D-AR) understanding the struggles of the common man.

There are certainly interesting discussions to be had about the disruptive influence of wealth on elections and about balancing representation with competence -- and folks are having that discussion -- but this article contributes less than nothing to those conversations.