"Citizen-Led" Decision-Making

[Lumpenproletariat]

PBS Newshour

Here's an objective non-partisan vision of how some decisions should be made ---- In this case specifically about redrawing district boundaries ("citizen-led redistricting process"). The same approach should be tried for dealing with other issues, like budget decisions, taxes, the deficit, spending cuts, tax increases, environment/climate change, e.g.


The good point he makes begins at about 3:10 into the video.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Texas representative James Talarico interview.

The good point he makes begins at 8:45 into the video.




(I had trouble posting this earlier, and ran out of time. So I'm doing it again, to clarify the point.)

The kind of "citizen-led decision-making" I'm thinking of is something similar to that of the jury system, where average citizens (not speech-makers who win elections) are brought together in some deliberating chamber to decide an issue, through a process of arguing the issue, and having experts play their role of answering questions from the "jury" participants, so they will get good information; and yet the final decision is made by these average citizens, mainly non-professionals, maybe chosen randomly, or similarly to the way jury members are chosen for court cases.

Of course this is not possible now, with only the elected representatives (speech-makers who win elections with their superior speech-making talent) making the decisions. These LEADERS obviously won't relinquish any power to some independent body. However, maybe some particular questions will come up in some way, maybe rarely, where something has to be decided and the speech-makers are unable to resolve it, and yet where some decision has to be made, by some means. Possibly in such a case some of the representatives might go this route, of letting it be decided by a process recognized as unbiased, non-partisan, and where the politician can detach himself from the decision that's reached, saying it was left up to this neutral process, and it had to be resolved somehow. So this "jury" approach could offer a way to get the matter resolved one way or another, while the politicians wouldn't have to commit themselves to one side or the other -- just let this citizen "jury" do it.


There has to be a system in which these "jury" participants would be neutral, or at least neutral and non-partisan as a group, and put into a process where they are fully exposed to all the facts about whatever issue it is that's put before them. Or a process which is predetermined to not be dominated by any one faction, but where all sides are equally presented. The "jury" would have similar discretion to that of a grand jury which is given some latitude to decide what is important, what is relevant, etc.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I do not want "average" making any decisions. Even the courts do not recognize "average" as a minimum standard of conduct for average people. One much at least hit the "reasonable" mark. Regardless of any guidance by experts, "average" may not have the capacity to process all the information necessary and making sound decisions. I want "above average" making decisions for the rest of us. I worry enough now about "average" just being able to vote. Look where that's got us. If anything, I would restrict "below average" from voting with a test that's about as difficult to pass as a DMV exam.
I think there is a perverse assumption that the existence of objective non-partisan individuals are like hens teeth. I think this largely resides in the minds of individuals who are incapable of being so themselves. There are entire governmental structures where intelligent objective individuals have great power over the lives of others and they exercise this power with great responsibility and restraint. The few squeakers within the system are quickly and easily removed by the others without any consideration for race, gender, headgear, etc. At this level, the stakes are just too high.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

PBS Newshour

Here's an objective non-partisan vision of how some decisions should be made ---- In this case specifically about redrawing district boundaries ("citizen-led redistricting process").

We already have a process for fair redistricting. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. But in Ohio, conservative voters are quite happy with the gerrymandering.

The same approach should be tried for dealing with other issues, like budget decisions, taxes, the deficit, spending cuts, tax increases, environment/climate change, e.g.

Budget decisions? You've heard the issue of too many cooks in the kitchen?

Though, I think it could be great for conservative voting folks to actually get a clue about where spending actually goes.

Moderator: Ok, lets get with the budget. You'll see on the screen the expected revenue for the year. Now lets do the big stuff. Who approves Social Security and Medicare.
*95% of hands go up*
Moderator: That's a consensus. Let's put that into the system. Spending bar goes up to 2/3's as high as expected revenue.
Moderator: Military wants $900 billion.
*75% of hands go up*
Moderator: Okay, put that into the system.
Conservative.: Holy fuck! We are already at the revenue line?
Moderator: Yup.
Conservative: But I thought the deficit spending was all wasteful stuff and fraud.
Moderator: No, it really isn't.... as you can clearly see.
Conservative: Maybe we should revisit the Social Security/Medicare spending.
Moderator: All in favor of dismembering the person who put forth that proposal?
*94% of hands raised*
Conservative: Withdrawn.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What we want is the best decisions.

I do not want "average" making any decisions.

Maybe "average" was not the right word to use.

What I meant by "average" is that these decision-makers (similar to jurors) would not need to be skilled speech-makers such as the winners of our political elections. The kind of communicating that is needed, for making the decisions, is the kind not requiring the oratory skills of a politician or candidate at a mass rally, bringing his audience to tears with his personality because he knows how to perform before a mass audience.

Note the TV interview back there, with Texas congressman James Talarico. He's proposing a "citizen-led" redistricting process. What does that mean? Isn't he calling for replacing the politician-decision-makers with "citizen" decision-makers? or redistrictors? I.e., having normal folks ("average"?) persons do it rather than the professional polished elected political speech-makers. This is the sense of "average" or "average citizens" which I'm emphasizing.

So "average" means regular communicators who don't have that special talent to move an audience, or manipulate an audience. We need communicators to make decisions -- I'm suggesting something like the jury format -- where the communicating is not speech-making (the skilled one wins over the audience with oratorical skills), but a more "average" kind of communicating, such as the jurors talking to each other, each trying to persuade the others, with a normal form of speaking where information is communicated and they speak their thoughts, or their suggestions to resolve the issue which is put before them.

So these participants would be "equals" to each other in terms of their oratory skill. And if someone "wins the argument" on a particular point, it would be because s/he had better information or a better approach to the problem which the group is trying to resolve. Not because s/he had a more charismatic personality, such as with political candidate debates.

If the communicating going on is less of the oratorical type and more that of ordinary conversation where no one is the speech-maker and no one the audience, then charismatic speaking ability plays a much smaller role in influencing the other participants. Which is the whole point -- i.e., that the participants should be "average folks" with minimum oratory, just communicating straightforwardly rather than in speech-maker fashion.

Even the courts do not recognize "average" as a minimum standard of conduct for average people.

Nevermind "average" -- substitute "not especially skilled in oratory" in place of "average."

One must at least hit the "reasonable" mark. Regardless of any guidance by experts, "average" may not have the capacity to process all the information necessary and making sound decisions.

The communicating to be done should be similar to that of jurors. These would explain the "information" to each other. Their "capacity to process" is sufficient if they can function similarly to jurors deliberating a case. An average I.Q. should be sufficient.

I want "above average" making decisions for the rest of us. I worry enough now about "average" just being able to vote.

No, like jurors. In the case they're judging, each juror becomes an EXPERT in the facts of that case. They are way ABOVE AVERAGE in that knowledge they gain for the decision they're called upon to make. A typical juror becomes an elite expert in the case, in the top .001% of the population, or .0001%. The only difference is that the subject matter for this new type of "juror" is about a public policy issue rather than the facts of a criminal or civil case.

Look where that's got us. If anything, I would restrict "below average" from voting with a test that's about as difficult to pass as a DMV exam.

Testing is OK. But in the deliberating process, jurors automatically get tested anyway. In having to communicate to each other, trying to understand each other, critical thinking is stimulated, and the difficult matters get clarified, so each becomes much better tuned in to what's relevant and what's not. And through this they become more knowledgeable way "above average" in the subject matter.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What's "fair"?

PBS Newshour

Here's an objective non-partisan vision of how some decisions should be made ---- In this case specifically about redrawing district boundaries ("citizen-led redistricting process").

We already have a process for fair redistricting.

Which process is that? Does this mean there's at least one state which has a "fair" process which is the right model for all the others? Even if there could be "a process for fair redistricting," there probably isn't one.

Here's an example how it's inevitably unfair: What about a district where some voters not only hate the 2 candidates offered to them (or 3 or 4 candidates), but at the same time there's another candidate they love but who is across the district line (in the wrong "district"), only a few miles away? while the candidates offered to them for their "district" are actually farther away from them (at the other end of the "district"). What's "fair" about that?

What if the candidate which best represents their interests, and is even closer geographically, is separated from them by the district line which happened to be drawn in the wrong place ("wrong" for that voter)? This inevitably happens in many cases, even if it's only a minority of voters who suffer this misfortune.

Congressional "districts" are not required in the Constitution.

To fix this (to make it "fair") might require the abolition of the "districts" entirely and just allowing all voters to vote for ANYONE in the state, or from a list of ALL the candidates throughout the state. And each voter can be trusted to vote for someone probably near to them geographically (because it's in their interest), but still be free to make the choice without "district" boundaries being imposed upon them to put arbitrary limits on their free choice to pick who should represent them.

Why wouldn't that be more fair? I.e., to allow each voter maximum freedom to choose which candidate is best for him/her? Since every state suffers from this unfairness, and since it's not necessary (there are ways to elect House members without needing to impose the "district" boundaries onto all voters), it's certainly untrue that "We already have a process for fair redistricting."

There are many possible ways this unfairness can be corrected. It's even possible to keep the "districts" generally, but still make it possible for some voters who are victimized by the system (in their individual case) to opt out of it and be allowed to vote for a candidate in a different "district" who would represent them better. This could be done at negligible cost, but those who are addicted to the current system are too callous to give any consideration to those made worse off by it and to any possible remedy to make it fair.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Typical callous attitude toward some (because they're a small-enough minority) who can be ignored and forced to submit to a system which imposes such an unfairness onto them. "We don't need to" inconvenience ourselves to make the system more fair to those who are victimized, because they're a small number we can ignore.

But in Ohio, conservative voters are quite happy with the gerrymandering.

Not all of them, and all those voters unhappy with it, totaled up, are probably a much greater number than those happy with it. There are ways to make the system better so that all sides are satisfied and willing to accept the election results.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[steve_bank]

'citizen led' equates to mob rule.

Congress and state legislatures have enough problems as it is reaching a a political consensus.

The founders did not want direct democracy, we can see why in today's politics.

You would have to define exactly how 'citizen led' redistricting would work.

What are the exact rules?
Do all citizens participate and vote or are citizens selected?

Member politicians are the same citizens as everybody else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Simple test: initiative petitions. They're typically garbage. I do not like our system but doing it directly is worse.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"Citizen-Led"

'citizen led' equates to mob rule.

That's what an autocrat says about "democracy" and "we the people" etc. Can't have that. It's better to leave the decision-making to the LEADERS, i.e., to the dictator, to the King, to the oligarchs, the Aristocrats, the speech-maker celebrities.

Congress and state legislatures have enough problems as it is reaching a political consensus.

Yes, same as the King's ministers had enough problems as it was reaching a consensus -- they didn't need "we the people" to cause chaos and increase the problems.

The founders did not want direct democracy, we . . .

They also did not want abolition of slavery.

. . . we can see why in today's politics.

How? There's virtually no "direct democracy" in today's politics. The referendum votes we have are run by aristocrats, who pay millions of $$$ to get their measures on the ballot, which would protect their aristocratic interests, and then those aristocrats fight it out with opposing aristocrats in the election -- it's not direct democracy. But it's no worse than having the Repubs and Demos fighting it out in Congress or state capital where partisan politics and control by special interests determine the outcomes.

You would have to define exactly how 'citizen led' redistricting would work.

Texas rep. James Talarico, at the top, probably has a scheme in mind which is well defined. There's also the system in California, which is an improvement over the current system of having Republican and Democrat partisan politicians do it, with the current majority party running it.

California has a "commission" that does the redistricting periodically. The "Commission" consists of

five Republicans, five Democrats, and four not affiliated with either party. They include professors, community leaders and businesspeople.

According to the state constitution, the first eight commissioners are selected by a panel of three independent officials from the state auditor’s office. That panel narrows down applications to 120 — 40 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 40 registered with no party preference — and then down to 60 applicants, 20 from each subpool. Then, the Legislature gets to remove as many as 24 names from the list (eight from each subpool). Finally, the auditor randomly draws eight names. These first eight commissioners then select the final six members by selecting two from each subpool.

California redistricting 101: What you need to know

An FAQ for voters on California redistricting as the state's independent commission works on preliminary congressional and legislative maps.

calmatters.org

This at least is an improvement over the traditional system of having one party (whichever has the current majority) do it arbitrarily.

What are the exact rules?
Do all citizens participate and vote or are citizens selected?

You can see above some of the California rules. It's mostly an improvement -- but it could be done still better. Why shouldn't there be a way that ALL citizens could participate? I.e., all citizens who want to participate.

Maybe there'd still have to be a "commission" of citizens which would do the final decision-making, draw the final district map, whatever. But why is it necessary to select out certain "leaders" ("community leaders" whatever they're called) as some kind of privileged class who are superior to everyone else? It's possible to get away from the concept that certain ones are more fit than everyone else, who can be selected by someone who is the selector-in-chief to choose who are the ones most superior to make these decisions for all of us.

Member politicians are the same citizens as everybody else.

No, they're a select group of speech-makers put into office by their aristocrat elite supporters and electors who choose whichever is the most charismatic and most talented at speech-making. The politicians are an elite class of speech-maker celebrities whose specialty is to manipulate audiences with their rhetorical skills. These are not the "same citizens as everybody else" like the average Jane and John Doe.
___________________________

BUT, in addition to the above, why shouldn't there be a further choice -- i.e.,

Abolish district boundaries altogether!

Why are congressional "districts" necessary?

The Constitution has no requirement that states be carved up into "DISTRICTS" for Congress representatives. No one has answered why there's a need for such "districts" in order to have U.S. House representatives elected for each state. Any state could choose a different system than one which assigns voters to arbitrary "districts" and forces them to vote only for someone in the "district" they are assigned to rather than for someone outside their "district" who might better represent their interests.

 

[Elixir]

The referendum votes we have are run by aristocrats, who pay millions of $$$ to get their measures on the ballot, which would protect their aristocratic interests, and then those aristocrats fight it out with opposing aristocrats in the election -- it's not direct democracy.

Those aren’t features of democracy. They’re corrupt add-ons (e.g. Citizens United) designed and implemented by and for the wealthy, in order to usurp the powers originally intended to be exercised by The People.

 

[Gospel]

I get the concerns about “mob rule” and whether something like this could work in today’s political climate I share some of them. Modern societies are huge, diverse, and connected in ways pre-industrial communities weren’t, so any direct citizen decision-making today would look different.

That said, It’s not like the idea has never worked in a complex society. For example, the Igbo of pre-colonial West Africa had a decentralized democracy where decision-making power was held at the community level women’s assemblies, heads of households, and village councils all had a say. There were no charismatic “professional” politicians dominating, yet the system functioned because communities were tightly knit, respected the process, and understood that what happened locally affected the wider network of communities.

Translating that to the modern world wouldn’t be a copy-paste job. It would require serious attitude adjustments, shifting from “my side wins at all costs” to a culture where citizens see themselves as stewards of a shared process. But the historical example at least shows that ordinary people can run their own affairs effectively when the framework supports mutual respect and accountability.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"democracy"? "the people"?
Is it all just a naked brawl?

The referendum votes we have are run by aristocrats, who pay millions of $$$ to get their measures on the ballot, which would protect their aristocratic interests, and then those aristocrats fight it out with opposing aristocrats in the election -- it's not direct democracy.

Those aren’t features of democracy.

What ARE "features of democracy"? Anything that has ever happened historically? What? Certainly not the Congress and President the U.S. has had, or various corrupt agents and "elected" or appointed officials and representatives, and the various state legislators and Governors. How can these organs of corruption and fraud be called "features of democracy"?

They’re corrupt add-ons (e.g. Citizens United) designed and implemented by and for the wealthy, . . .

So there is no democracy -- there's only the "corrupt add-ons" which are not democracy. No "government by the people, for the people" -- The whole rotten system -- all 3 branches -- are just corrupt add-ons, not only the laws, but also the courts which apply the laws, ALL court proceedings and legal decisions handed down, from the Supreme Court at the top of the USA-Establishment, all the way down to the local traffic court, etc. -- none of this chaos is any of the "features of democracy" -- it's all for the rich and powerful, not "the people."

. . . implemented by and for the wealthy in order to usurp the powers originally intended to be exercised by The People."

Right. "intended by -- by -- uh, intended by -- well, whoever, whatever --"

OK, who are the original Founders? intenders? the Real ones -- not the usurper aristocrats back there 200-300 years ago, but the original ones, the Real McCoy Intenders who "intended" all this -- this "democracy"? Who intended all this for us? Certainly no one today takes the blame for "intending" all this shit.

And "the People"? Hah! Whoever that is, Whatever -- this cabal called "The People" that everyone talks about are probably the worst Secret Society Conspiracy of all. Notice how sneaky "The People" are (or is) -- They're never to blame, never guilty of anything, always 100% pure, righteous, sanctimonious, Holier-than-thou, immune to any criticism. So everyone claims to be "The People" and that their enemy (whoever it is) is "not People" or is against "the People" -- and yet no one can name who this clandestine cult is which calls itself "The People."

Can anyone make a coherent statement -- not drug-induced -- identifying who "the People" is or are? Are "the People" always right? Are they infallible? How is it that every side in a controversy is always for "the People" and yet both sides are always bashing each others' brains out? saying the other side is against "the People"?

If there's any possible answer to such questions, I think they have to be very simple answers. The slightest complication in the answer just means all the discourse is meaningless noise, and there's no point to any of it, except to force your will onto others, and squash anyone in your way (if you're strong enough).

Is that all politics and power and democracy is about? Just a brawl between wild animals each trying to tear apart any others who get in their way? And all the discourse, the decision-making, the speeches, the "elections" etc. -- it's all just part of the brawl?

 

[Elixir]

What ARE "features of democracy"? Anything that has ever happened historically? What?

Of course no democracy is perfectly democratic by every measure. With that in mind, pick your own set of measures and grade known examples on a spectrum to your own satisfaction. What will you have accomplished?
Anyhow, from Göbekli Tepe to pirate ships to local food cooperatives to governments, there are plenty examples of collective entities that employ processes that can be called “democratic”, at least in some aspects of their operation. If you’re unsure of what qualifies as an aspect of democracy, you can look up the word or even read loquacious tomes pontificating on representative government to refine your understanding. In the meanwhile I suppose we will have to make do with common use of the adjective “democratic”, imprecise as that may be, and pick our own poison as far as exemplars of “a democracy”.

 

[Elixir]

Is that all politics and power and democracy is about? Just a brawl between wild animals each trying to tear apart any others who get in their way?

OF COURSE IT IS. Ideally it serves to limit harm and mortality, in practice… maybe not so much, but populations have grown faster than the brawling can kill’em so hey - it’s a success.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Corporations are already directly making decisions for us. And from another thread corporations are just people. Therefore, we already have direct democracy. Congratulations, Lumpy, you did it. Yay!

 

[Patooka]

The semantic pedantry in this thread is so fucking infantile it would make Jordan Peterson embarrassed.

 

[Swammerdami]

Congressional "districts" are not required in the Constitution.

To fix this (to make it "fair") might require the abolition of the "districts" entirely and just allowing all voters to vote for ANYONE in the state, or from a list of ALL the candidates throughout the state. And each voter can be trusted to vote for someone probably near to them geographically (because it's in their interest), but still be free to make the choice without "district" boundaries being imposed upon them to put arbitrary limits on their free choice to pick who should represent them.

Why wouldn't that be more fair? I.e., to allow each voter maximum freedom to choose which candidate is best for him/her? Since every state suffers from this unfairness, and since it's not necessary (there are ways to elect House members without needing to impose the "district" boundaries onto all voters), it's certainly untrue that "We already have a process for fair redistricting."

Yes; that's the way to go. Use party lists, proportioned and transferable votes, etc. While you're at it, eliminate primaries or implement them as California does.

The Congressman-per-District idea is to provide a sort of "ombudsman" for his constituents, but that task can be separated from district alignment.

There are many possible ways this unfairness can be corrected. It's even possible to keep the "districts" generally, but still make it possible for some voters who are victimized by the system (in their individual case) to opt out of it and be allowed to vote for a candidate in a different "district" who would represent them better. This could be done at negligible cost, but those who are addicted to the current system are too callous to give any consideration to those made worse off by it and to any possible remedy to make it fair.

No! There are several reasons this is problematic. Go with your first proposal.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"OUR LEADERS" MUST DECIDE EVERYTHING
They know what's best for us.

Simple test: initiative petitions. They're typically garbage.

"typically"? That means most are "garbage" but not all. So why not look closer at the ones which are not garbage.

Someone in favor of slavery could do an assessment historically of the many cases of abolition to get rid of slavery, like in the 19th century. And their assessment of abolition might be: "Simple test: abolition movements. They're typically garbage." All the lives lost, the suffering. And then the collapse of the economy in the former slave regions. Better to keep slavery than endure all that garbage.

There can't be any consideration of how "initiative" measures could be improved? no thought about ways to make the initiative process work better?

I do not like our system but doing it directly is worse.

Always? Doing it directly has to always be worse? It can't be better in some cases?

What about the jury system. That's where citizens convene to decide directly instead of having the politicians do it. That's direct democracy -- "the people" decide it instead of the elected representatives. And it's worse? We'd be better to let the elected representatives/legislators/speech-makers decide criminal and civil cases, to determine guilt and innocence? That would be better?

 

[Elixir]

That would be better?

Asking the wrong question. Let me help you:
That WILL be better?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Simple test: initiative petitions. They're typically garbage. I do not like our system but doing it directly is worse.

Yes and no. Nothing is ever black and white. In Ohio, initiative petition got reproductive rights into the state Constitution (and... gay marriage ban). But the reproductive rights effort would never have gone through the heavily gerrymandered state legislature. Honestly, rights shouldn't be held to a popular vote.