Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig proposed a Jury-like system for passing legislation. The idea is that regardless of someone’s stated political party, people will vote for individual laws that benefit them on a case by case basis before following hard party lines and it would be too costly and complicated for malicious groups to bribe individual citizens the same way they give “campaign contributions.”
What you are describing is supposed to be the role of the parliament in a well functioning democracy: you should be able to vote for the person representing your values, not choose the least bad option amongst two.
I actually like that idea. Provided the law is ensured to have been read and the juries remain anonymous. Maybe multiple batches with no way of knowing who will be assigned to judge what law?
Ill definitely have to read more about that, thanks for telling me.
I don’t think this system was meant to be perfect. It’s just more resistance to bribes, coercion, and having you’re values twisted by establishment political relationships.
Corporate lobbying groups would still exist, but they would be forced to make their case in the open, in front of the jury, not while kicking back some drinks or a wink and a nudge along with a campaign check. Also, not all lobbying groups are evil. To name a few, the EFF, ACLU, and FFR all have lobbying aspects their orgs. This would level the playing field between the good ones and the ones with deep corporate pockets.
Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig proposed a Jury-like system for passing legislation. The idea is that regardless of someone’s stated political party, people will vote for individual laws that benefit them on a case by case basis before following hard party lines and it would be too costly and complicated for malicious groups to bribe individual citizens the same way they give “campaign contributions.”
What you are describing is supposed to be the role of the parliament in a well functioning democracy: you should be able to vote for the person representing your values, not choose the least bad option amongst two.
A parliament is still an additional layer. What I’m describing is a Jury system for passing laws.
I actually like that idea. Provided the law is ensured to have been read and the juries remain anonymous. Maybe multiple batches with no way of knowing who will be assigned to judge what law?
Ill definitely have to read more about that, thanks for telling me.
I don’t think this system was meant to be perfect. It’s just more resistance to bribes, coercion, and having you’re values twisted by establishment political relationships.
Corporate lobbying groups would still exist, but they would be forced to make their case in the open, in front of the jury, not while kicking back some drinks or a wink and a nudge along with a campaign check. Also, not all lobbying groups are evil. To name a few, the EFF, ACLU, and FFR all have lobbying aspects their orgs. This would level the playing field between the good ones and the ones with deep corporate pockets.