This has always seemed to be like the best aproach. You never want people that gravitate towards positions of authority to be in such positions. For positions that require some degree of competence you have to settle with what you get, but what qualifications do politicians actually have?.
Its not like we have the modern equivalent of the ancient chinese civil servant exam so that civil servants at least have some basic level of competency. Picking at random cannot possibly be any worse than what we have, it would reduce corruption and would create the incentive to invest more in the education of the general public.
The problem isn’t just that psychopaths want to be in control, it’s that millions of people want psychopaths to be in control. It’s almost as though there’s a gene for self-destructiveness and about half the population has it.
> In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the traditional and primary method for appointing political officials, and its use was regarded as a principal characteristic of democracy.
The legal requirements and cultural qualifications to become a fully enfranchised Athenian citizen were already pretty self-selecting for what that society wanted in a more consensus driven way than most modern countries have.
I like it, but I have a better and more practical solution: limit the term of every politician to 1 term in any one office, and 3 terms in total.
Make it a grass roots constitutional amendment campaign in the US.
Then, the problem solves itself because the political career no longer becomes a viable power grab. And money interests can’t work fast enough to buy favors.
I think the supreme Court should be like jury duty. Judges and lawyers with ten years experience get called up for one court case only. All random peers who've passed the bar and met basic requirements.
all other political appointments should be ranked choice or like that parliament system where if x party gets 30 percent of vote they get to appoint 30 percent of the positions.
You are right. There's no good way to efficiently measure that - even just excluding people with a history of criminal fraud is costly.
A secretary problem setup would eliminate the worst candidates while removing the traditional political gauntlet that selects for lizard people. Purely random also works as there is still a general election.
I believe it. I once ran for office locally with no political experience on a wishful "average guy" ticket (I lost badly), and one of the hardest things about the process was taking criticism from people who didn't know me, who just wanted to vent their anger at the system or in some cases, trolling from the incumbent. It dawned on me pretty quickly during the race that the kind of person cut out to win and rise in this line of work has got to have skin as thick as rawhide, and a psychopath's inherent disregard for other people's opinions and grandiose sense of self would really fit the bill.
The complete opposite is probably sufficient as well. It gets a lot easier to tolerate bullshit when you realize almost every stranger's asshole-ish behavior is a function of something wrong with themselves or their environments.
I just look at those behaviors as huge billboards that broadcast what's wrong with that person (as long as it's a stranger; if they're not a stranger it's a completely different story)
To play devil's advocate a bit, perhaps the challenge isn't to rid ourselves of psychos, but to find a mechanism for ensuring a healthy mix of personalities in power. It takes different strokes to move the world.
There's an argument that we've made the job of politician so undesirable that only the most unfeeling, cynical and power hungry would seek it.
Lets make it into a normal job. 40 hrs per week, an expectation of privacy for those in the role and their families, and remove the cameras from the debating chambers so they can actually speak their minds instead of grandstanding for the home audience. Reduce the length of elections to 2 months max so that campaigning isn't a full time job in itself too
This is old and needs (2012) in the title. In over the decade after this was published, I think now the prerequisite to be in politics in most places is to be a psychopath. The “more likely” in this headline is sorta toning it down a bit too much.
Readit News
Its not like we have the modern equivalent of the ancient chinese civil servant exam so that civil servants at least have some basic level of competency. Picking at random cannot possibly be any worse than what we have, it would reduce corruption and would create the incentive to invest more in the education of the general public.
> In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the traditional and primary method for appointing political officials, and its use was regarded as a principal characteristic of democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
Make it a grass roots constitutional amendment campaign in the US.
Then, the problem solves itself because the political career no longer becomes a viable power grab. And money interests can’t work fast enough to buy favors.
all other political appointments should be ranked choice or like that parliament system where if x party gets 30 percent of vote they get to appoint 30 percent of the positions.
It would beat the part
A secretary problem setup would eliminate the worst candidates while removing the traditional political gauntlet that selects for lizard people. Purely random also works as there is still a general election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem
It's an inherent problem with a society I think. That it gives them something to climb, to get control of.
It only makes sense that the ruling class will be full of lizards. And the most dedicated lizards will be on top.
I guess this is a society-engineering problem. How to make a lizardproof society?
Title asserts "research suggests" yet neither cites nor mentions any actual research while quoting commentary from a social magazine article.
This is low quality fodder for gossip.
I just look at those behaviors as huge billboards that broadcast what's wrong with that person (as long as it's a stranger; if they're not a stranger it's a completely different story)
Lets make it into a normal job. 40 hrs per week, an expectation of privacy for those in the role and their families, and remove the cameras from the debating chambers so they can actually speak their minds instead of grandstanding for the home audience. Reduce the length of elections to 2 months max so that campaigning isn't a full time job in itself too
Empathy is important. Sure, too much of it, like anything else is bad. But not showing it at all is worse.