I get the idea behind it, but this very much would backfire in that only the rich could become representation. Remember they made it a rule that they aren’t allowed to sleep in their office while in D.C., and 60k not only won’t afford a place in D.C, it most definitely won’t allow for someone to have a home near their constituents AND D.C.
So we would end up with just having first or second sons of oligarchs, 1 trained to run the companies, the other trained to represent their families best interests.
Or, and hear me out in this one, if the average is not sustainable they would need to raise the average or lower costs until a balance was reached. By forcing them to play by the very rules that are writing, there is an incentive to make them fair.
While this may not be there exact way too achieve that, the goal is still a good one to work towards.
The problem is, representatives and senators don’t live average lifestyles. They need to pay for two residences, one of which is in one of the most expensive metro areas in the country. Then the constant transit costs between the two. They also pay their staff out of their own pocket if I remember correctly.
Truth is they need to be paid much more. With 100% of salary in retirement. And they need to be barred from any kind of employment after.
Hear me out, maybe we could build some sort of large building/s with a lot of small houses in them for them to live in while in DC. The government could even give them some sort of vouchers that helps them pay the rent or the buildings could just be owned by the government.
I think the government should switch to a random lottery. Every term a random person is selected from all available and eligible citizens. It would be our civic duty, put your regular job on hold for a few years and do your part.
Most would hate it, but that’s kinda the point. If we all had to eat our own dogfood, we’d eventually start making it taste better.
I’ve said this for years. Live in dorms. Cafeteria food. Minimum wage. All assets put into trust and in a vanilla total market fund for 5-10 years after service. It should be like jury duty. I’ve not met a single person who disagrees with this system.
Most importantly, 24/7 surveillance. No secrets. No back room deals.
Dorms, cafeteria food, and minimum wage are not things that most Americans would want. It would really only be a benefit to those already making minimum wage (or unemployed) and without families. For the rest those would be motives for corruption, rather than the opposite.
That is exactly the point. Most people would avoid it. Idk I think the poor and unemployed are exactly the people who would be most motivated to improve society. Those and people intrinsically motivated by the work. I want to actively discourage the people motivated by greed and power. Governance should be a service and a chore not a meal ticket. I’m sure there are other adjustments to the incentives/disincentives you’d have to implement to achieve that but I think my plan is a valid outline. Strong punishment for corruption would also work as an effective backstop, when paired with an independent and free press that is not fully captured by big business.
I’ve not met a single person who disagrees with this system.
Well consider me the first.
Then first the plan won’t work, those dorms will be run by the very government politicians they are supposed to make miserable. so they won’t.
And why must that be a goal in the first place? Instead of improving democracy so that politicians aren’t in the pockets of PACs and actually represent the people, you want to just make them both miserable and now unelected.
If you want that random people are in charge instead of politicians a direct democracy system will work far better then this.
Who said anything about making them miserable? That isn’t, and shouldn’t be, the goal. The goal is to remove incentives to be corrupt.
A nice dorm and high quality food provided to them removes some of that.
Locking assets into total market funds removes incentive to inside trade, because you can’t.
Have you met a random person?
deleted by creator
Think the rough analogy is Jury duty. After going through that, I was frankly surprised how generally decent the folks were that were being vetted. Sure a couple were a bit off, but on the whole the folks seemed pretty reasonable. I didn’t agree with some of them, but at least they seemed to be roughly rational and open to thinking about things.
I have indeed, I still trust them more than anyone who actually wants to be in politics.
