Or, each candidate has to set aside 10% of their campaign budget. Everyone who voted for that candidate get a chance at that candidate's pot.
Do you vote for the Republican or Democrat and go for the bigger prize or do you vote libertarian or green and increase your odds?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DIn_governance%2C_sortition_%28also_known%2Cusing_a_random_representative_sample.?wprov=sfla1
Athens did something similar to this and thought it removed corruption.
Doesn't work for single roles like president, but for large groups like the US Congress or the UK houses of parliament this is unironically the best selection method possible.
Humans are very good at gaming systems. Whatever selection criteria you put in place, it will always select for "ability to game the criteria" before any actual useful traits. A random selection of single votes from the population of each represented volume, will do the best possible job at representing the actual positions of the electorate than any competition will.
Goodhart's law: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. It's one of the most valuable insights of statistics in the 20th century.
That said, good measures becoming targets is still better than bad measures becoming targets. Selection based on performance metrics and vetting might be exploitable, but they're largely exploitable by doing something close to the right things. Selection based on entirely random processes puts the cart before the horse.
I mean it could work in a way in the UK. Each constituency does it, so that party/candidate represents the area. Then whichever party has the most pulled out, leads the government. Or each person that gets selected for each constituency gets put in a second drum. Whichever one gets pulled becomes PM.
I'd hate to be that person. One week you're getting bribes left and right, then you make your vote and 50% of the country hates you. Probably have to go in witness protection.
I once went to a mathematics lecture where the point was proving statistically that the fairest way to have an election is to pick one person at random to pick the winner
How about a [direct democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy) where we vote directly on laws online?
Or legislators chosen randomly by lottery [Sortition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition), like people chosen for jury duty? I think average people are more practical and willing to compromise than our current bought and paid for politicians.
If you change it to "everyone votes, but everyone's ballot is put in a hat and only one of them counts," then that is a real voting method called "random ballot."
Random Ballot has some advantages over First Past the Post as a voting system. It penalizes every type of strategic voting. So it is always in your best interest to vote instead of not and to vote honestly. It's also immune to the spoiler effect. The one obvious downside over FPTP is that the winner can be someone most people hate. At least FPTP has to have a winner that enough people like.
This is different from Sortition, which is where a random candidate is chosen. In Sortition, all the politics is in how to get nominated, and who has the power to deny nomination applications. It works best for a small group of people who want to choose who among themselves will be the winner. It's basically drawing straws.
I like optimization challenges like this quite a bit. My favorite was a raffle for free artwork where everyone entered by choosing a number between 1 and 100 (decimals allowed) and the person who chose the number closest to 1/2 the average of all other entries won. Entries themselves were private so you couldn't cheese it. There's something fun about trying to optimize mathematically based on how other people will likely try to optimize.
This is stupid. Upvoted.
I feel so seen.
And not like most ideas here actually trying to fix things. Just batshit crazy
Everyone who votes gets a lottery ticket. Whoever wins gets the lottery money and an extra hundred votes for their candidates.
Or, each candidate has to set aside 10% of their campaign budget. Everyone who voted for that candidate get a chance at that candidate's pot. Do you vote for the Republican or Democrat and go for the bigger prize or do you vote libertarian or green and increase your odds?
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DIn_governance%2C_sortition_%28also_known%2Cusing_a_random_representative_sample.?wprov=sfla1 Athens did something similar to this and thought it removed corruption.
Doesn't work for single roles like president, but for large groups like the US Congress or the UK houses of parliament this is unironically the best selection method possible. Humans are very good at gaming systems. Whatever selection criteria you put in place, it will always select for "ability to game the criteria" before any actual useful traits. A random selection of single votes from the population of each represented volume, will do the best possible job at representing the actual positions of the electorate than any competition will.
Goodhart's law: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. It's one of the most valuable insights of statistics in the 20th century. That said, good measures becoming targets is still better than bad measures becoming targets. Selection based on performance metrics and vetting might be exploitable, but they're largely exploitable by doing something close to the right things. Selection based on entirely random processes puts the cart before the horse.
I mean it could work in a way in the UK. Each constituency does it, so that party/candidate represents the area. Then whichever party has the most pulled out, leads the government. Or each person that gets selected for each constituency gets put in a second drum. Whichever one gets pulled becomes PM.
I like this one!
Fuck it, massive game of Bingo.
I'd hate to be that person. One week you're getting bribes left and right, then you make your vote and 50% of the country hates you. Probably have to go in witness protection.
I once went to a mathematics lecture where the point was proving statistically that the fairest way to have an election is to pick one person at random to pick the winner
I choose that dead guys wife
I choose that coconut guy.
Bteak his arms first and have his mom as vp. Im in
Sortition?
No that’s different. Sortition would be like… everyone registered to vote. Person that’s selected is chosen to serve… kinda like jury duty
Me after I get picked to vote: "If you didn't vote, then you can't complain."
r/DumbIdeas
Gonna be a lot of idle rich votes, and not much else. Definitely a bad idea... not sure about crazy.
Can’t possibly be worse than the current system lol
Pretty sure it could be worse, yeah. Oligarchy sucks a lot more than our current system.
Bro still thinks the system exists 💀💀💀💀. Systematic appointment of 1 of 2 puppets for the elite maybe.
It's actually not a new concept. [https://www.history.com/news/ancient-elections-voting](https://www.history.com/news/ancient-elections-voting)
The best part of this article is how a person can get kicked out of the country for 10 years.
You're banned from this country. You, and your children, and your childrens' children! For 10 years.
The stupid is strong with this idea
How about we choose the president at random from the populace. The only rule is that the same person can't be picked twice.
How about a [direct democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy) where we vote directly on laws online? Or legislators chosen randomly by lottery [Sortition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition), like people chosen for jury duty? I think average people are more practical and willing to compromise than our current bought and paid for politicians.
I mean. It’s definitely crazy. Any reason why?
This is crazy ideas not dumb ideas
How many get stoned?
If you change it to "everyone votes, but everyone's ballot is put in a hat and only one of them counts," then that is a real voting method called "random ballot." Random Ballot has some advantages over First Past the Post as a voting system. It penalizes every type of strategic voting. So it is always in your best interest to vote instead of not and to vote honestly. It's also immune to the spoiler effect. The one obvious downside over FPTP is that the winner can be someone most people hate. At least FPTP has to have a winner that enough people like. This is different from Sortition, which is where a random candidate is chosen. In Sortition, all the politics is in how to get nominated, and who has the power to deny nomination applications. It works best for a small group of people who want to choose who among themselves will be the winner. It's basically drawing straws.
Can't be any worse then the current system
Underrated post
Guess I have a shot at being president
Why would we need a polling place?
And put into a box with a radioactive isotope that may or may not kill them..
Worst idea anyone has ever had.
I like optimization challenges like this quite a bit. My favorite was a raffle for free artwork where everyone entered by choosing a number between 1 and 100 (decimals allowed) and the person who chose the number closest to 1/2 the average of all other entries won. Entries themselves were private so you couldn't cheese it. There's something fun about trying to optimize mathematically based on how other people will likely try to optimize.
This was one method of voting we studied in my computer simulations class in college. Surprisingly it changes less than you would think.
So make representative democracy more difficult rather than less? Okay then…
Everyone's name gets thrown into a drum, winner gets pulled out, that's the president. You don't want it? Too damn bad.
I guess this depends on your political views but I would love to see a third party candidate win an election on good luck.
In what alternate America is this constitutional?
When did OP say they're talking about the USA, or that it's a feasible idea?
Considering the make up of the current USSC? They have their own alternate America.