I think this needs to replace the European Comission in the EU if it hopes to ever be seen as something else than a central dictating authority by the average citizen.
how would you prevent judges from that? there are simple ways, like having anonymity or they live for their term in a protected environment, where unchecked people can't enter, nor even call or message anyone
ปีที่แล้ว +1
The same question applies to our current elected democratic systems. It's an interesting question, but it's not specific to the proposed idea of citizens assemblies. In particular it cannot be used as an objection.
It’s quite easy to bribe politicians because you know they are there for the long run. Any bribe that promises to keep them in power will be taken. There is a very high probability that all those politicians will take the bribe, and shut up about it. However, if those people are random people, who know they are taking important decisions that will impact their own families, their friends, their neighbors, there is quite a big chance that any attempt at bribing them will end up being revealed. This is especially true as we don't exactly trust our fellow citizens so those random people would be under special scrutiny. The “trust by default” attitude we have towards our well-dressed politicians wouldn't stand, and we would definitely put some things in place to hold them accountable. Finally, those randomly selected people would be there just for a while, so each time you have to bribe someone new, hence increasing the possible number of whistleblowers over time.
You could easily come up with some reasonable (but somewhat arbitrary) rules like: an expert is someone who has done full time research in the area for at least 5 years with publications and acceptance by the scientific community. Then you could choose randomly from that pool of experts...
@ I'd guess you'd want to choose experts based on what was representative of the broader range of views on a topic, rather than it being a fully random process.
ปีที่แล้ว
@@blahdelablah what I suggested wasn't fully random, since you restrict the pool to people who have somehow proven to be experts on the area. I don't see how your suggestion of "broader range" is in opposition to that. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean "broader range". How would you define broader range and choose from those people? To make this more precise: how would you define what experts with a broader rage of view on climate change are? And how would you choose a representative sample from those experts?
@MichaelBachtold For climate change, expertise would include climate scientists but not exclusively climate scientists. For example, how do you weigh the impact and effort. If resources were infinite then you could make every helpful change at once, but that isn't realistic so we need to focus on what to prioritise. Also, knowing how quickly a change would "pay off" is helpful. For example, let's say that one option is to insulate every home in a country to reduce demand on energy for heating and cooling. This is a nice wish, but it needs to be more detailed to be taken seriously. Where will the materials come from? Who can do the work and are there enough people to do it? Will the people that could do the work have the required training and is there a way to adequately compensate them for this work? How long will it take to deliver and how much of a benefit is it likely to provide? These are the types of questions that it would make sense to answer, and climate scientists will not have all those answers, so a broader range of experts would be needed to allow more well rounded proposals. Also, whilst something like home insulation is relatively uncontroversial, when it comes to more controversial proposals you'd want experts with varying views to help having more detailed debates, for example geoengineering projects may be more controversial.
The assembly after offering training in choosing experts. Also Critical Prejudice Theory Training offered . Assembly members can use AI to design their assembly
Time is coming for more real Democracy, thanks for these great ideas.
I think this needs to replace the European Comission in the EU if it hopes to ever be seen as something else than a central dictating authority by the average citizen.
thanks !
Question:
How would you prevent such a small group of people being bribed, intimidated or induced into voting a certain way?
The representatives in the assembly can do debates , the people can vote on issues.
how would you prevent judges from that? there are simple ways, like having anonymity or they live for their term in a protected environment, where unchecked people can't enter, nor even call or message anyone
The same question applies to our current elected democratic systems. It's an interesting question, but it's not specific to the proposed idea of citizens assemblies. In particular it cannot be used as an objection.
It’s quite easy to bribe politicians because you know they are there for the long run. Any bribe that promises to keep them in power will be taken. There is a very high probability that all those politicians will take the bribe, and shut up about it.
However, if those people are random people, who know they are taking important decisions that will impact their own families, their friends, their neighbors, there is quite a big chance that any attempt at bribing them will end up being revealed. This is especially true as we don't exactly trust our fellow citizens so those random people would be under special scrutiny. The “trust by default” attitude we have towards our well-dressed politicians wouldn't stand, and we would definitely put some things in place to hold them accountable.
Finally, those randomly selected people would be there just for a while, so each time you have to bribe someone new, hence increasing the possible number of whistleblowers over time.
who decides who the experts are?
You could easily come up with some reasonable (but somewhat arbitrary) rules like: an expert is someone who has done full time research in the area for at least 5 years with publications and acceptance by the scientific community. Then you could choose randomly from that pool of experts...
@ I'd guess you'd want to choose experts based on what was representative of the broader range of views on a topic, rather than it being a fully random process.
@@blahdelablah what I suggested wasn't fully random, since you restrict the pool to people who have somehow proven to be experts on the area. I don't see how your suggestion of "broader range" is in opposition to that. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean "broader range". How would you define broader range and choose from those people? To make this more precise: how would you define what experts with a broader rage of view on climate change are? And how would you choose a representative sample from those experts?
@MichaelBachtold For climate change, expertise would include climate scientists but not exclusively climate scientists. For example, how do you weigh the impact and effort. If resources were infinite then you could make every helpful change at once, but that isn't realistic so we need to focus on what to prioritise. Also, knowing how quickly a change would "pay off" is helpful. For example, let's say that one option is to insulate every home in a country to reduce demand on energy for heating and cooling. This is a nice wish, but it needs to be more detailed to be taken seriously. Where will the materials come from? Who can do the work and are there enough people to do it? Will the people that could do the work have the required training and is there a way to adequately compensate them for this work? How long will it take to deliver and how much of a benefit is it likely to provide? These are the types of questions that it would make sense to answer, and climate scientists will not have all those answers, so a broader range of experts would be needed to allow more well rounded proposals. Also, whilst something like home insulation is relatively uncontroversial, when it comes to more controversial proposals you'd want experts with varying views to help having more detailed debates, for example geoengineering projects may be more controversial.
The assembly after offering training in choosing experts. Also Critical Prejudice Theory Training offered .
Assembly members can use AI to design their assembly
Who wants to help me fix democracy? Reply to this and let's do it.
Delphi Technique
I would not trust an unelected citizens assembly
Is a citizen's assembly supposed to 'forge public opinion'?