I have this unrealistic dream. It is a
dream where, since we are all so self-centered, we can only choose
for others and not for ourselves. It is an example of how I like to think about problems in unusual ways.
We have a debt/deficit crisis. We all seem to want everything that will benefit us but do not want to pay for anything that we believe will not benefit us.
In this scenario, one of my thoughts is
this: We set up a system where voters of one state would vote for the
candidates from a random (drawn each election cycle by publicly
broadcast lottery) other state. Each state would thus be voting for
another state's representatives. That representative would then be
reliant on votes from a state that would not be the beneficiary of
wasteful spending for things like "earmarks" that would
benefit that representative's state. This would help the effort to steer legislation toward the common good, rather than for the good of only one's own
state. The candidates would remain the same, that is being from the
state they will represent, and representing their state's
constituents. But, those constituents would not have the expectation
of a representative that would work to benefit their own state at the
expense of the whole nation. In addition, any state that would deny
another state's reasonable desires as a result of their votes for
that state's representatives, would risk reprisal in subsequent
elections. This would be a form of checks and balances.
This system would limit the power of long term elected officials (without term limits which I oppose), as they would not be re-elected based on the power of their seniority in congress, and their ability to bring home the bacon (pork) to the voters that support them.
This system would limit the power of long term elected officials (without term limits which I oppose), as they would not be re-elected based on the power of their seniority in congress, and their ability to bring home the bacon (pork) to the voters that support them.
Just an unrealistic dream, but perhaps food for thought.
Hi Brett,
ReplyDeleteMy first visit since the day you opened shop!
I'm responding to this one, from my birthday, because I want to recommend John Rawls to you. His 1971 "A Theory of Justice" describes a thought experiment in which the people of a society meet together with none of them knowing what kind of people they will be in their society. Nobody knows whether they will be rich or poor, male or female, black or white. They meet to agree on the rules that will govern their society. Rawls argues that because no one knows what they will be, they will choose fair rules; Justice is whatever people in this imaginary position would choose.
I also was particularly interested in the post about extreme liberalism (probably where I am most confortable, though I am not always true to the cause; it is like my conceptual vegetarianism, accepted but not always practiced). While I share Jeff's optimism and idealism, I most definitely see the need for a strong liberal voice. As Bill Maher points out, the Democrats represent the middle, the Republicans represent the far right, and the Tea Party represents the ignorant (probably not an exact representation). The point is that no one is speaking for the liberal view that every American deserves civil rights, opportunity, and a minimum standard of living.
As we discussed during our call, it is difficult to express oneself adequately without making the post too long for most readers and difficult to make it accessible to readers without reducing it to a tweet or written sound bite. You are doing well!
Good luck with this! I'll try to stop by from time to time!
Love, Dad