35 thoughts on “What if we replaced politicians with randomly selected people? | Brett Hennig

  1. There's only two stories! The first is the word of Yashua! The second is His= story! Who is he He? And what is His story? The story of how he stole the minds through deception, it is constantly happening! If you're awake you know what i mean!

  2. It is interesting to me how many try to change or to fix the system but are not willing to change themselves.

    "If you wanna change the world, you have to change the continent, if you wanna change the continent you have to change the country, if you wanna change the country you have to change the city, if you wanna change the city, you have to change the village, if you wanna change the village you have to change the family, if you wanna change the family you have to change yourself"

    So let us start with ourselves and work our way up to the world. It is a slow and hard process, but it we put effort ("The only thing you can control is effort" – Mark Cuban) we can make it. Stop looking into other and comparing yourself, be the best version of yourself. Work on yourself every single day. I do it myself. It is hard, but I see improvment over the last 15 years. Start today, start now! 😀

  3. These seems like a great idea for many places, but I don't know if it would work in my country, the US. I feel like the majority of Americans are very close minded and conservative. And those that want to infringe upon the rights of others will go to no end abysmal act to get their way.
    Maybe if you only randomly selected from those who don't hold "Us vs Them" mentalities, this could work beautifully.
    however I fully agree that the system of rich white guys governing everybody is a much worse system is this. It's not without its problems, but it's certainly better than what we currently have.

  4. Is being dictated to by politicians via the general will and their political party in democracy, any worse than being dictated to by the general will via sortition? Why should people of a higher intellect or morality be dictated to by those of a lesser aforementioned. Even if these randomly sorted folk have the best advice in the world – there's still every chance these "advisers" might be operating under some form of prejudice or influence (such as from the very people who were abandoned for sorted politics in the first place). So who choses the advisers? There's probably a good reason why sortition went out of fashion with the Athenians. Randomly sorted representatives will fair far worse than the elected MP's IMO. All the same, anything that engages people to care more about the running of their lives has to be a progressively good thing. So bring it on and see where the chips fall…

  5. This is the stupidest idea I've heard on how to run a government. Who says that if we all thought perfectly rationally parliament would have 50% women and ethnicities that match the population? I vote for people whose policies I agree with and I don't care about race, gender, religion, etc. I'm supposed to be want my representative in parliament to have the same background as me, but not the same political views? In this entire video he doesn't give a single way that random selection is better than democracy

  6. Ill take the politicians anyday, the public is not informed enough to make all decisions. I dont trust any subset of the US in the hands of randomly selected persons’ control.

  7. I like this idea. Anyone that want to lead has an agenda. We need to randomly select a governing council, like a jury. No more single leaders.

  8. Better to make local and national laws by any citizens at local community meetings. Keep the power spead equally at the bottom.

  9. I like it when people think about how to make our system better, but I can't agree on this one and I will name few reasons why this fantasy of randomly selected people would bring major problems with it:
    1: It would not fix corruption. Everday people are as vunerable to corruption as politicians, espacially if they are poor.
    2: To lead, govern, hold public speeches etc. is a skill you have to learn, they have to be educated people, who are able to understand there own political system. Go out in the streets, ask some people to explain some basic laws or how their political system works. I bet you will be very disappointet in the outcome of this.
    3: Point two leads to my third point. Image how the relation with other countries will suffer, if you have a bunch of random people negotiating with highly skilled politicians.
    4: The average person is not guided by logic, they are guided by emotions, the need of importance and the need of social recognition/ acceptance. This could lead to war or other stupid decisions very easily. They don't think in terms of greater good, but mainly in their own interest. Just look at decisions made by the public (Brexit, Trump, Krim etc. most of them are done by fear and maybe some people tried to justify their fear by misinformed logic) and policitical movements like sjw and extreme feminism.
    5: If the economy of a country is well, so are the people, but if you go around the streets and ask the average person why they don't have enough money they blame it on the big companys and "the elite." Chances are they would destroy the economy, which is like cutting the branch you are sitting on.

    But I don't want to just criticize without giving a solution.

    What would you do if you own a company and there are a few job positions you have to fill. Who would you take? Someone who is randomly selected? Nah I don't think so. Someone who is influencial and knows how to talk but who maybe is not an expert in this field, like a politician? I don't think so either.

    You would take the most skilled person you can possibly find for this job. So how about we put people into the ministry of finance who actually have a clue about it and reached expert level. How about we have doctors and nurses dealing with questions about healthcare?

    So now, give me your opinion on this, I'm open to overthink my standpoint.

  10. Totally agreed! This system in this Country where a person possible as a candidate is ‘Oprah’ is about as corrupt as it gets…yeah, someone who falsely claims Barack Obama is the ‘saviour’ of mankind and willingly purposefully deceives her followers with brainwashing lies is an atrocious idea! The person should not be totally random though, there should be a an extremely thorough background check, and I feel there should be. A required fulfillment of at least 3-4 years U.S. Military Service and served in the finest Armed Forces of the world, in their history as well…there are too many Democratic anti-military shenanigans occurring. At least President Trump was a high-ranking Military Academy student upon graduating high school[this should qualify a candidate for ‘Office’ too]…and could provide a valid legal documentation of citizenship in the U.S. & birth certificate! These should be automatic pre-qual’s. In order to become President of the United States of America! One needs to be very knowledgeable on how to defend our great Country and its legal citizens against enemies, foreign and domestic.

  11. FEDERALLY speaking, I think the House of Representatives should be SELECTED BY LOT rather than POPULARLY ELECTED like our current members of U.S. Congress.

  12. To speak about these concepts without defining many of the guiding principles such as "liberal democracy" is pretty concerning, if not outright outlandish.

  13. Isn't there a chance this turn into populist system, e.g. if you have a pot with 70 red balls and 30 blue and you want to choose 10 random…do the math. And how you will put the accountability? … I could just have fun in my term and a lot of money from corruption… What is the motivation of getting anything done?

  14. All those countries trying this out. A nice list of all the places I just might move to. Good on them for making an effort to try something different. :]

  15. Yeah, but do we really want the randomly selected kkk, child molester, or serious ex-con in charge? Will be vet them first?

  16. Sortition Democracy does not sound like a great answer and comparing it with what Ancient Greece did is also a pretty poor example because it didn't so work well there either. Groups and individuals were often treated unfairly and without any kind of due process, as there was often confusion about what to do and the motivations of council members often compromised their duty. In the US, nearly every congress person is a lawyer, mainly because vast knowledge of our Constitution and the laws is a requirement in order to understand how you should decide things. A random sampling of people will likely not be qualified to understand what the law is and how to apply it. Would you give them a crash course of how to understand and apply the law? Clearly, even with an education in law, politicians don't always follow what the law states. We saw a recent example of our democrats in the senate ignore the requirement of evidence and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in the Supreme Court nomination case of Brett Kavanaugh, and they did it solely for partisan reasons. Being partisan and ignoring evidence is a big problem, and I think one way to combat it would be term limits for congress, 8 years, just like the term limit for president. Having term limits and bringing in new blood may also help stifle special interests and lobbyists from sinking their hooks permanently into lifelong politicians. Beyond that, lobbying and special interests should be illegal, and we should get the money out of politics.

  17. this system was implemented for hundreds of years in the Roman empire, I don't why it is being neglected in today's politics! may politicians need to manipulate the system to favor their own interests

  18. Great idea, can you imagine the resistance put up by these career politicians. I'd vote in favour of it just to watch the fireworks.

  19. I think this would only work with a tough system of checks and balances; these people may be able to get away with abusing the system. Also, although he seems to be fairly dismissive of the 'my next door neighbour is an idiot' argument, one of the main objections I have to this is that the majority of people are both too easily persuaded and too ideologically fixated (either to the left or right of the spectrum) to make a good job of government, which requires a degree of openness and impartiality, particularly on the bigger issues like liberty/laws, climate policy, or something like Brexit. Although politicians at the moment can be bigots, this can also be resolved by amending democracy, which would be a much more palatable change than a whole new system of government.

  20. I've given this some thought over the years.
    The main problem is that, like jury duty, people that don't want to do it will get out of it leaving behind only those that do want access
    to the position and the power; giving us exactly what we have today.
    Unless, of course, you intend on making it mandatory (after screening processes, validation of citizenship, etc.)
    I suspect I have far less faith in an unwilling leadership group than the speaker.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *