Alternatives to congress

Randomly drawing citizen. Sure politics require some training, but it can be done on the job

Also, countries with proportional votes tend to force politicians to talk with each other more than countries with single representative per district.

Limiting elected official mandates to one or two. If you couldn't do something in 10 years no reason to think you'll do it latter

Have you worked with people recently? A decent amount can’t learn anything and don’t take personal accountability. I guess that does sound like Congress.
- No. This sort of arrogant rubbish needs to be shut down.
  In my job - a doctor - I routinely discuss difficult and complex topics with people of all backgrounds and education levels. With very few exceptions people are able to understand difficult topics.
  It is my experience that the most difficult people to work with are not ordinary people but those who hold the opinion that everyone else is stupid.
  With very few exceptions sortition and participatory democracy have worked well whenever they've been tried.
I've toyed with the idea of staffing the House by sortition. Maybe not entirely random, pooling from State and local offices might be more practical, political efficacy is a skill and a little experience is valuable.

Well my good-faith arguments would be direct democracy (i.e. everyone votes on every change) or ranked choice, but that has its own problems. However, you didn't say it has to be serious. So I suggest a system that locks a chimpanzee on LSD into a room with signs (options) and blinking lights. Chimp starts rolling and points to the blinky light he likes (or hates) either way, your government is operating far more efficiently than hairless apes doing something that is apparently too much work, and most are just as ill-informed as acid-chimp. I honestly think acid chimp accidentally gives you a better (albeit random) set of values than capitalism/democracy ever has.

You, I like you.

A bit is specific, but you can probably adapt them.

Bring back pork spending, it's over all cheaper to spend 100 million on some garbage than beating people into submission to pass something.
Increase number of representatives significantly, makes some things less efficient, but also massively reduces the power of lobbying, and increases the power of localized activism.
Limit length of allowed legislation per vote. Smaller more focused bills are ultimately better than sweeping legislation that attempts to address everything. More votes also makes working together easier with lower stakes and more opportunities to collaborate.

Soviet Democracy. Workers elect delegates from among themselves, who can then be subject to instant recall elections at any time. Remove the "career politician" aspects from government.

Dunno, we’ve never seen anything go wrong with the Soviet system of representation before have we?
- Definitely became overly-beaurocratized after WWII, but was generally far more democratic than Capitalist states
Could work if you remove the democratic centralism part, which is an effect of one of the main reasons the USSR was undemocratic most of the time
- Almost every democratic structure practices Democratic Centralism, it just means the group is bound to the democratic results.

End FPTP. House of representatives actually representing the people instead of state or party. Senate still representing states but not parties.

Can you elaborate?
- The US has an effectively two-party system. These parties make decisions based on the money they are given. In order to win votes, they find the most divisive issue to wedge a divide between their party and the other side. If they resolved these issues, they would have to create new ones so they are actually motivated to not compromise. There are many books and other writings about these problems.
  As for the rest of the world, the US was dominant in the 20th century in power and influence. This meant that people who wanted power in other countries would look to the US way of doing politics for inspiration. I am not making all the connections for you, but I do want to mentioned how the parties in UK started hiring US campaign managers in the late 90s to help them gain power in their country. It clearly worked. Other countries have followed suit.

A bicameral legislature, one house elected by mixed member proportional system and the other selected at random from the voting age population. Legislation must pass both houses, if it passed one house but not the other it can go to referendum at the same time as the next general election.

You can also have things like citizen initiated referenda. Campaign finance laws similar to those in the UK are also desirable.

Hm, interesting take on the random group. The US has citizen initiated referendum. Just takes signatures. But the money spent on advertising for or against has a massive impact. I had to look up the uk campaign finance laws. They limit 3rd party spending, but I don’t see that as stopping someone from spinning off hundreds of organizations that each buy like one Comercial or something.
- I can't say that I'm very familiar with the UK laws in depth other than that they have been in operation for many years and are generally considered effective.
  For referenda there's no reason you can't have a publicly funded campaign for yes and no and limit private advertising, we have something like that here in Australia.
  Sortition, random selection, when combined with an elected body has a lot of benefits. It has the advantage of having professional politicians with institutional knowledge and relationships while also having a body the that is actually representative of the larger population.
- Legislators have been ignoring the vote, too.
Mixed member proportional is nice, but it suffers from overhang seats.
I have a different proposal, but that one is pretty extensive.
It goes as following:
1. Replace the presidential system with a parliamentary one. Separation of powers is still as strict as it is. But it goes further. Veto power of the president, judges, anyone, it's gone.
2. The head of government is chosen by both popular vote and consensus. The candidate with the most votes and approval from most members in parliament wins. They can be removed from position by parliament or by referendum at any time.
3. Change FPTP to proportional representation. Specifically, it should be party-agnostic, and have a 4% threshold, below which a seat holder still can vote and speak, but has less speaking time. Seat apportion will be according to the Hamilton method, and there will be an additional spare vote, so that main votes to parties falling below the threshold, will go to the voter's spare vote, which is one likely to gain a seat. Party members can recall parlementarians, and people can do so too through referenda.
4. Abolish electoral districts. Furthermore, no person earning more than 3* the median US income (stocks and other earnings overseas and tax evasions included) may contribute to or participate in the elections in any way.
5. Split up the Democratic and Republican Parties into their ideological caucuses. Caucuses may merge, but no caucus may be bigger than 16% of the total US House of Representatives amount of seats.
6. Abolish the Senate. It's a slog that slows down and only helps bureaucracy. The work it does can also be done by having a strong constitution (that actually does guarantee people's rights to civility, safety, and liberty), and parlementary comi
7. Increase the House's size to 700 seats. This way, the work pressure is smaller and the parliament can be more representative, and lobbying becomes harder. States' seats will be degressively proportional in a similae way to the EU's seats.
8. Faithless electors are forbidden, age limit. No officeholder shall serve a term beyond 5/6th of the median life expectancy in their residential region at their birth date - rounded down to the nearest year. In the US, median life expectancy is 76 years, so that'd mean 63 years.
9. More voting booths. One voting booth per area of 1000 voters, distributed such that as many people as possible have one within 1 km of their home. Remote areas with fewer people than this, will have a mail-in as default.
10. The US. Supreme Court of Justice is not appointed by any leader. This also goes for lower level courts. The court shall be appointed apolitically through multiple random ballots, out of a pool of all federal judges, whereas the latter shall be appointed by the same method, through a pool of all in their area, who have passed juridicial examination, whose passing requirements are determined by a commission of judges without any economical and/or political ties to non-judge figures.
The court's size is determined as C•0.075 3sqrt(US current populace + 2), where C is the court size in seats. This would mean that there'd be 54 judges in 2020.

Greatly expand congress (like at least 10x), and have it work like jury duty.

Random cost less to buy than congress people.
- But you'd have to bribe a lot more to sway legislation, and nobody serves more than like a year or two so you can't "buy for life". Also, congress people are already shockingly cheap.

Everyone forms communes that reflect their personal values. I would prefer one with direct democracy, and no representatives.

However big a commune you want, but I'd recommend keeping it at 2000 people or less. Anymore and people start to see each other as strangers, not community members. Plus direct democracy works better with smaller population numbers.

So once you get to 2000 people, how do you determine who to expel? Maybe it would be fairest to expel the people who have the babies, putting them over 2000.
Hm, I do agree that if you have too many people, things go down hill. But what if one commune decides to use all the water heading to another... or decides their personal values are that other commutes should serve them.
- What this person is proposing is functionally similar to forms of anarchism and anarchist theory has some answers to these kinds of questions.
  For example the communes could have a federation where representatives are sent to settle disputes. Likewise instead of a fixed 2000 people with walls between you could have people in several smaller overlapping communities which act as bridges across a network of communities. Similar to how a person can be a family member and a company employee and a resident of an apartment building etc.
  Though I don't completely buy in to everything it says, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works goes into how anarchist communities can and have worked

We all upvote or downvote a law

Lol, reddit making laws. I mean at least the names of the laws would be interesting. Lawy McLawFace

What's the opposite of congress?

Progress

Came here to make the same joke.

IMO anything with a direct vote of the people will end up as spending wars between special interests with the funds to advertise.

Seems like campaign finance reform is a more pertinent question then.
- Nah, unless you suspend the 1st ammendment, you can't really fix that enough. People will always be free to pay for an ad supporting thier opinion.
- Yeah, it's a hard nut to Crack. Maybe it is just impossible to get the money out of the process.

This isn't an ideal solution, but a practical one. A simple hack for the U.S. would be to make congressional votes secret. Yes, this means congress people would be less accountable, but think about where their accountabilites lie. These people are far more worried about their parties' strongmen and sponsors than their gerrymandered constituents.

Impossible to implement in the present U.S. climate, but more idealistic is to divide the US into 50,000 person districts (greatly expanding an individuals access to their rep), then group those into evenly sized super districts. The reps choose from among themselves a super rep to attend congress, who they can recall at anytime. This should make gerrymandering more difficult, and dilute the effectiveness of corporate donors while increasing the influence of individual voters.

Oh, another thing about secret votes. It transfers blame from individuals to congess itself. If votes are public, and a popular bill fails, then the individuals and parties are blamed, if secret, then the whole of congress gets blamed and you could see incumbents lose reelection not because of how they individually voted but because of how the body as a whole did. That could force cooperation, but it could also introduce a new form of gamemanship.

There's a few ways in practice.

Court decisions are binding broadly. The conservative capture of the Supreme Court is political genius, honestly. They tend to have the final say regarding policy.
Federal agency rules are also broadly binding. EPA rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions, for example, apply everywhere in the country.
State legislatures are often less polarized, which facilitates a more productive legislature.
State agencies, like a state environmental department, mirrors its federal counterpart but is more localized.
Non-state organizations can get things done, though their interests are often limited and not necessarily in the interests of the broad public as state and federal institutions are.
International institutions can 'set the tone'. They may not have any power to actually do anything within a specific jurisdiction, but people within those jurisdictions can draw policy inspiration from international organizations and try for something locally binding.

Well polarization can be used to measure how much the nuances affect things. Like the border bill that Biden tried to put up. The nuances were ignored in favor of what was good for the party. Bills that would be passable 20 years ago as bipartisan thanks to those nuances can't pass now because the parties have driven more people to ignore the nuances and just vote for one party or the other no matter the platform. And thus anyone who crosses the line fears they won't get reelected. And yes, money drives it as well. But not only directly. The media makes money portraying politicians as extremists to. So they help drive it as well. I don't think the money can really be controlled, so I think we need a different way to pass legislation that can somehow negate it's effect. I just don't know what that is.

Define a set of rules, and someone will figure out how to cheat it.

I honestly wonder if sortition is actually the answer.

Not much would stop special interests from influencing the random. IT would probably cost less even.
- Isn't the strongest point of leverage that special interests currently have how expensive political campaigns are in terms of both money and time (and special interests' ability to provide both)? Sortition would eliminate this.

representative government is pretty good

let's talk dumping the executive branch. those bums are worthless.

The only alternative to an elected legislature (parliaments are different from congresses) is either direct democracy or one party rule.

Direct democracy—except instead of directly voting on legislation, voters vote on the desired effects of legislation and a metric for measuring if those effects are being achieved. The actual legislation is then written by specialists trained on effective policy implementation, who can adjust the legislation on the fly if it isn’t having the desired effect. Their mandate is limited by the associated metric—if they can’t meet the goals, they lose their mandate and the case goes back to voters for review.

Hm.. I can't see voters being able to understand metrics enough to choose what is in their best interest. Also, anything where everyone votes will be dominated by special interests that have the money to advertise.

A parliament.

Anarchy’s free association. We simply have them split and control their own part of land unless there’s agreements to use certain parts of common land. Would work for everything except global warming.