A legislature would accomplish little if its members were not organized in some way. That would have been good before things got totally messed up as they are today. However, while a non-partisan government probably wouldn't make things worse, it probably wouldn't improve things either. Besides, in and of itself, what is wrong with a group of individuals banding together to run for political office?
Nothing is wrong with people organizing for political office, the issue is how the government treats them. Today, one must either go through a complicated process of registering a political party or an even worse process of registering as an independent (for example, the libertarian candidate of governor of texas almost wasn't on the ballot not to long ago, and there are still states with only two registered political parties). My suggestion is to abolish the party registration process, not the parties.
There's a lot of that (range voting) in Europe. 'Nuff said.
Name one country in Europe that instituted range voting? your confusing range voting with party-list voting (wrongfully called proportional representation).
Who gets to decide these 'qualifications'? Are phycological(sic) examinations Objective? (the current DSM would put a lot of Objectivists in the loony bin). Who would prescribe the tests?
Not all examinations in the DSM need to be part of a phycological exam, are there NO phycological illnesses that we should test for? And there could be other qualifications (age, natural born citizen, property, etc.).
I have great faith in those who buy lottery tickets.
Your sarcasm is misplaced. I wasn't arguing that winners of a lottery are more qualified or that gamblers are more qualified, I was arguing that a reduced voter poll would make voter ID checks easier and give a greater incentive to vote rationally.
How about we just make the government structure a little more hierarchical? Before the 17th Amendment, Senators were selected by state legislatures who were elected by the voters - indirect representation. Changing that, IMO, was a mistake. Let's reverse that and go several steps further by having a small group (say 25 people) of voters elect a representative who will join a small group of other such representatives from other groups of 25 people. That group, in turn, will elect a representative to be part of the next hierarchical level, again consisting of about 25 political units. And so on...
If the groups only number about 25 people or representatives, all in each group will likely know each other and know who amongst them is best qualified to represent them in the next hierarchical level. This would only require about seven levels to cover 6 billion people (25^7 = 6,103,515,625). The leader of 6 billion people elected in this way, I predict, would be a pretty smart guy (or gal).
That is similar to how the Doge of Venice was elected, except some lottery was involved (and that could be a good suggestion). However, that kind of purely hierarchical system has been tried in a thousand different forms (People's Republic of China, Holy Roman Empire, Roman empire, Sparta, ect.), maybe just not with as many levels as your idea.
(Edited by Liam Joseph Thornback on 9/28, 12:39pm)