Yes, that might be good, but it's a pipe dream at the moment. Further, having congress deal with such issues is open to far more political manipulation.
Having people who are competent at their job in regulatory positions seems just as important as having Congress do their job for them.
Or you know they could delegate their authority to an agency staffed with experts.
I'm all for Congress actually doing its job but we all know they won't and that passing each regulation by hand isn't possible without some sort of parliamentary system where legislative and executive branches are combined
Yes, because what we really need in Congress is people with even less understanding of the issues they're regulating than the ones we have now. Have you ever watched a reality TV show? That's the "median American" that you're proposing be put in charge of Congress.
OK, I'm not saying no, but you'd need to explain how that's different than the current situation other than the top leadership would be less crazy and less corrupt on average. Or aside from being different, how would having better leadership make the situation actively worse.
Surely you can't be implying we have subject matter experts running the country now. Or that the subject matter experts we do have from law and show business who are in charge now are only in charge of their areas of expertise specifically law or show business? I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with having congress leading the American Bar Association, its just that having lawyers in charge of, say, nuclear power plants, is about as dumb as having plumbers in charge of source code.
I suspect that very few would be solved - new congresspeople would likely depend more on senior staff to understand complex issues. It’s possible we’d end up with a series of unelected experts who direct policy for relatively inexperienced congress members.
As others have pointed out, it's the apathy that's the problem, moreso than the ignorance. What would people say about Congress if they didn't consult medical professionals on healthcare, the military on wars, and economists on spending before passing laws in those areas? Nothing good can come out of sticking a bunch of people in a room and asking them to vote on laws with no information as to what effects those laws can have; we may as well ask them to vote at random. (Actually, that would arguably be better, as lobbyists wouldn't have any impact. Unless, of course, they write the laws in the first place.)
Not necessarily. The composition of this "congress" might vary depending on the topic under discussion. The group trusted on "trade with china" might differ from that trusted on "military action in Syria". And entry is derived from trust networks theoretically involving all people, not some electoral process where only career politicians are realistically candidates.
Because then you're left with who is better convincing uninformed people; the experts, or paid lobbyists.
reply