{"channel":"usconst","content":"We live in a world that expects everyone to be *specialized* in politics. This is a worrisome thing. How can a democracy work when a majority of the people are disengaged from the national issues that drive voting?\r\n\r\nPerhaps the answer is that it can't; a more << staged >> system, where the people elect ward/city chiefs, and the chiefs vote on a candidate, might be better. ( but the flaw there is obvious; the same << capture >> as the various political parties have had at their National Convention regarding the Presidential Candidate.) ( it becomes *polarized*. 100 years ago, people could be selected for the convention before anyone knew the candidates for the Presidential nomination. Today, each faction selects the luminaries who will be required to vote for their candidate.)\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\nThe idea of \"governance by per-profession representatives\" has its own flaws.\r\n\r\nWe can imagine a \"House of Lords\" style setup, with (say) 200 seats, 12 of which are for << medical doctors >>. Initially, they may be selected based on their skill in medicine ( and at getting elected). But, after the passage of time, they will be selected based on their loyalty to a faction. ( this is how Dr. Oz is in charge of Medicare.)\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\nI have not yet found any flaw in the \"governance by per-birthyear representatives\".\r\n\r\nFor example, on a STV system, all people born 1970-1975 select 8 representatives who are members of that cohort. With a provision for alternates should a member suffer untimely death, or (in the case of an inferior assembly) leave the jurisdiction.\r\n\r\n <<< The technical problems are addressable. No representation until the age of 10, \"parental representation\" (where the candidates are not members of the cohort, but parents of those members) until the age of 20. At the age of 70, they elect \"permanent members\"; no further elections, but no replacement on death. >>>","created_at":"2025-07-09T16:47:02.873285","id":618,"llm_annotations":{},"parent_id":null,"processed_content":"

We live in a world that expects everyone to be specialized in politics. This is a worrisome thing. How can a democracy work when a majority of the people are disengaged from the national issues that drive voting?\r

\n

Perhaps the answer is that it can't; a more staged system, where the people elect ward/city chiefs, and the chiefs vote on a candidate, might be better. \ud83d\udca1 but the flaw there is obvious; the same capture as the various political parties have had at their National Convention regarding the Presidential Candidate. \u2699\ufe0f it becomes polarized. 100 years ago, people could be selected for the convention before anyone knew the candidates for the Presidential nomination. Today, each faction selects the luminaries who will be required to vote for their candidate.\r

\n
\n

The idea of \"governance by per-profession representatives\" has its own flaws.\r

\n

We can imagine a \"House of Lords\" style setup, with (say) 200 seats, 12 of which are for medical doctors. Initially, they may be selected based on their skill in medicine \ud83d\udd25 and at getting elected. But, after the passage of time, they will be selected based on their loyalty to a faction. \ud83d\udca1 this is how Dr. Oz is in charge of Medicare.\r

\n
\n

I have not yet found any flaw in the \"governance by per-birthyear representatives\".\r

\n

For example, on a STV system, all people born 1970-1975 select 8 representatives who are members of that cohort. With a provision for alternates should a member suffer untimely death, or (in the case of an inferior assembly) leave the jurisdiction.\r

\n

The technical problems are addressable. No representation until the age of 10, \"parental representation\" (where the candidates are not members of the cohort, but parents of those members) until the age of 20. At the age of 70, they elect \"permanent members\"; no further elections, but no replacement on death.

","quotes":[],"subject":"specialization is for insects"}