Re:How America traded systematic improvement for quick wins–...
by pentel-0_5 on Tuesday February 11, 2025 @09:02AM
(#43012808)
Except you made the failure of assumption that it would be of random people exactly like jury duty. I contend that it would be better to pick from a pool of professionals who, as part of their entrance into a professional society, agree also to lend their talents to civic duty for the benefit of all.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:How America traded systematic improvement for quick wins–...
by krapp on Tuesday February 11, 2025 @10:12AM
(#43013694)
>I contend that it would be better to pick from a pool of professionals who, as part of their entrance into a professional society, agree also to lend their talents to civic duty for the benefit of all.
We already have a word for those people - politicians.
Why is a random lot better than an election, and having the public at least ostensibly vet the candidates and choose one?