I guess Randomized solutions seem very attractive for us. I have thought about it, but the problem I see is that once selected the citizens can be bribed and they may be uniformed about complex issues.
An alternative idea is to follow the jury duty model. At every district, you randomly select a small group of citizens(the electors). They are brought together and isolated. Every candidate presents their proposals, background, arguments, counter arguments, etc. The electors listen, and each of them casts a secret vote. You eliminate the candidate with the least number of votes and do another round. You do that until you have a winner. At that moment you have elected a member of congress and the electors are dismissed.
Edit:
The advantages:
- It is very inexpensive. Easy to set up.
- Campaigns are short and you don't need donors.
- Lesser-known candidates would have better odds of winning.
- Campaigns will not be based on simple slogans that can be said in less than 30 seconds.
- Democratic.
- Transparent. The process can be televised. Like a trial.
- The electors can choose their preferred candidate without throwing their votes away.
- It would make third parties viable.
The drawback is that people may feel like they are not participating.
"Elector selection" would be immediately subject to strong pressure from monied interests. The electors would need to be chosen from a pool (who gets in the pool?) and steps would need to be taken to prevent bribery (sequestration?).
An alternative idea is to follow the jury duty model. At every district, you randomly select a small group of citizens(the electors). They are brought together and isolated. Every candidate presents their proposals, background, arguments, counter arguments, etc. The electors listen, and each of them casts a secret vote. You eliminate the candidate with the least number of votes and do another round. You do that until you have a winner. At that moment you have elected a member of congress and the electors are dismissed.
Edit: The advantages:
- It is very inexpensive. Easy to set up.
- Campaigns are short and you don't need donors.
- Lesser-known candidates would have better odds of winning.
- Campaigns will not be based on simple slogans that can be said in less than 30 seconds.
- Democratic.
- Transparent. The process can be televised. Like a trial.
- The electors can choose their preferred candidate without throwing their votes away.
- It would make third parties viable.
The drawback is that people may feel like they are not participating.