Non-insiders would be able to discuss matters without many of the pre-established interests that career politicians have, but unless lobbying reform/control was added, they would eventually fall victim to the same predatory forces that our otherwise elected officials face.
Would a group of people selected at random do a better job addressing the nation’s problems than the current Congress?
It's called sortition, people are chosen as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates.
Which means you can't buy an election, you can't use money to influence an outcome of an election. It would be like jury duty. You would be picked to serve for x number of years and then never serve again. That would mean the person would work on what they think is important and would be more willing to work with the other side. We use sortition today when we have trial by jury, you get picked to serve and you do the best job you can.
In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the primary method for appointing officials, and it was widely regarded as a principal characteristic of democracy.
One of the principles discussed by the founding fathers was that politicians have enough personal wealth and educational wherewithal to avoid
- being bribed easily
- being economically threatened / intimidated, after political service
- being manipulated with assaults of advocacy, or just generally not knowing how the big[ger] system works.
it would change the game, but unlikely for the better — and worse it may cultivate a 'diva' behavioral pattern common to sudden wealth / power (lottery winnings, new rich, etc). This diva pattern has been well-shown by And Warhol's "15 minutes of fame" and in parables like The Hunger Games, Lord of the Flies, etc.
After having spent decades watching "public opinions" voiced I believe randomly selected citizens would chose to do what the Best Media Salesman (reporter) told them was a good choice for action. Wisdom and logic are too rare in today's world and majority think is usually uninformed and therefore wrong. The world is too complex and solutions should be presented by those with experience relative to the situation in question. No one person is able to know Everything. Usually the "solutions" we see today aim at symptoms we can all observe and Rarely address the Cause of the problems. That wastes time, assets, and creates More Problems.
Possibly, as long as there are requirements such as having a certain amount of education and being financially stable. Remaining anonymous until after their term is over would help prevent bribery and other issues. Just some basic ideas, putting this kind of system into effect would definitely take much more thought but I feel as if these principles would benefit this sort of system.
No but better than the current President, who policies have done more to harm America.
Can you please elaborate why you think this is so? Can you explain why you have this opinion?
There are a lot of problems with career politicians. They tend to be from a very small set of occupational backgrounds. They are not representative in any way, from gender to race, of the actual perspectives or life circumstances of Americans.
But there is something to be said for expertise. Many of the people in Congress not only have worked on a real skill that has complexities but also have learned how to consult their young aides who have all sorts of different academic backgrounds. A lot of politicians are smarter than they may sometimes look, even if they still are often way out of their depth in the matters they're trying to craft policy for.