Partyless Democracy

RedPlanet

Partyless Democracy

I know Gandhi prompted the idea however i am not exactly advocating the same thing.
What i have in mind, is a system of weighted referenda.
I'll explain that first then get to the Partyless part.

We don't vote for parties, rather referenda type questions.
They are weighted however, to determine how much your vote counts.
They are weighted by means of sub-questions, to determine how much the voter actually knows about the issue.
Some people invest a lot of their time and energies into specific issues, which mean a heck of a lot to them.
However today during Referenda, when they cast their ballots it counts for no more (nor less) than your average joe whom may only have the most cursory understanding of the same issue.

An example:

Referenda Question 1:
Should The Road Traffic Act, 2002 be Amended to include the following phrase:

"Pedal cyclists are required to wear a bicyle helmet that complies with EN1078 standard".

__YEA

__NAY

Now answer the following subsection:

a) Peer reviewed studies show conclusively that cyclists wearing a helmet are protected from serious head injury.

__True

__False

b) EN1078 is the most exacting bicycle helmet safety standard.

__True

__False

c) Pedal cyclists account for 3% of road traffic.

__True

__False

d) Pedal cycling is gaining in popularity in the last 5 years (a higher percentage of road users are doing it)

__True

__False

---

so, your score on the subquestions determine how much your vote counts toward the issue.
If you get them all wrong, then maybe your vote gets binned (actually that's probably a bit harsh). If you get them all wrong your vote on this issue only counts for 0.05 out of 1.00, or something like that, to be decided by those that are asking the questions.... now who does that?...About that partyless system..

Political parties should be banished altoghether.
Instead we all participate in government just like jury duty.
Basically you get picked lotto fashion, and have to do your "governance duty".
It may take 1 month, or more or even less.
It's mostly anonymous, you don't advertise the fact that your in government, the press is under gag orders and political interest groups cannot contact you, nor you contact them.
You sit inside a chamber with about 500 other folks selected lotto syle just like you. It's a big chatter session, there's some oversight however, steering you all toward your duty. There is an "Idea Box", which basically consists of Ideas put forth by the general public, the media, and political interst groups (probably even former political parties). You all decide what Referenda gets asked, what the subquestions are and how it's weighted.
There are penalties for failure to take your role seriously. Decided by those 499 randomers in that room.

Now how should projects like Transport 21, LUAS or Healthcare ever be accomplished?
I see no reason that these projects couldn't, or wouldn't be in the Idea Box.
I assume they will be.
After say, 1 particular government (and lets not forget the public referenda) decide to embark on a particularly long project, it should be able to get discontinued, or not. Basically the project should be let stand or fall on it's own merit.
Alternatively some project may require being left alone by successive governments, and perhaps that could be built-in when the referenda was asked originally.
Tbh i haven't got it all worked out.

Anyway, food for thought.

DadaKopf

I've been thinking about this a good bit lately.

I think it's very possible that parties are becoming increasingly irrelevant compared to other forms of civic engagement and will be replaced with something else.

It's a trend right across the developed world that membership of political parties and trades unions is declining. But people are no less political - but they're political in new ways. 'Non-traditional' ways.

I had a good pub conversation about this a few months ago. I think that, even in Ireland, people have gone beyond political parties so much so that they are becoming increasingly out of step with their electorates.

However, it also makes sense that parties such as they are, are becoming more powerful only because fewer people are engaging in traditional politics.

This is a dangerous scenario because without proper accountability to the people, without democratic checks-and-balances, the political leadership can and will continue to make bigger and bigger decisions in the interests of themselves and business, and further clamp down on the space for civic opposition which will necessarily ensue.

Akrasia

that sounds very anti democratic. Just because I don't know what the EN1078 standard for cycle helmets is, doesn't mean I don't have a valid opinion on whether or not people should wear bicycle helmets.

Not to mention the fact that wording the ballot sheet so extensively gives rise to a big chance that the questions could be leading the voter in a particular direction.


If this kind of voting was implimented, we'd all be ruled by those freaks from BBC's Eggheads quiz show.

Anyway, not all of those questions are objective truths. The question on Peer reviewed research for example, is vague. I don't know what you think the answer should be, I'm sure there is plenty of research saying that helmets do protect cyclists, but I have seen research which demonstrated that motorists tend to drive more recklessly around cyclists who are wearing protective gear (it's psychological, they assume that because the cyclist is fully kitted out, that he/she is more experienced and therefore less likely to make a mistake). So in that particular case, the fact that I am particularly well informed and have seen this study, might actually make my vote less valuable than someone who just went with their gut and said 'yes'
(this would be particularly relevant if we were asked to vote on speed cameras where the common sense view is that they help reduce accidents, but the recent research from the U.K. suggests that breaking the speed limit is only a major contributing factor in 5% of accidents and in some places the cameras caused more accidents than they prevented)

Apart from your mad voting method,

The system of government is very similar to Athenian democracy from 3000 years ago.

The council (boule) of 500, the largest board of officeholders, formed a steering committee for the assembly, drafting legislation and setting its agenda. The 500 were selected by a lottery, held each year. A citizen could serve on the council twice in their lifetime. Any citizen could submit proposals to the council for drafting. Technically it was forbidden for the assembly to vote on measures without a pre-proposal (probouleuma) from the council. These might be concrete, worked-out proposals or 'open' proposals, that is, little more than items on the agenda. The council, or rotating sections of it, also served as a kind of front desk for the state, on duty in the council chamber 24 hours a day. Every day of the year one of these councillors was head of state for the day (for instance, holding the keys to the treasury and the seal of the city and being responsible for greeting foreign envoys, and in the 5th century presiding over the assembly and council meetings). It has been calculated that one quarter of all citizens must at one time in their lives have held the post. This head of state position could be held only once in a lifetime.

(wikipedia)

RedPlanet

Akrasia wrote:

Just because I don't know what the EN1078 standard for cycle helmets is, doesn't mean I don't have a valid opinion on whether or not people should wear bicycle helmets.

I agree, just that since you don't know the standard means that you know less about the issue, therefore i'm counting your vote less.

Akrasia wrote:

Not to mention the fact that wording the ballot sheet ...

I agree 100%. I think it's being done present day.

Akrasia wrote:

The question on Peer reviewed research for example, is vague. I don't know what you think the answer should be...

I'm familiar with the issue, i'm asking the question it because i think it stirs it up a bit. It's exactly the sort of issue people opine, and you'd definately have to argue your position in that 500 chamber.

Dar

To paraphrase Stalin: it's not the people who write the answers who count, but the people who write the questions.

Referenda Question 1:
Should the Irish Consitution be amended with the following phrase:

"Dar is now the Dictator Supreme, a post the he shall hold for the rest of his life".

_YES
_NO

Now answer the following subsection:

1. What is the average airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

__

RedPlanet

I think that's trolling.

seamus

It's a valid concern actually I think. It's an extreme example, but it shows that anyone with an agenda could bend the vote to their favour. If the governing council of the time wasn't overly keen on having something voted in via referenda, then it could make the questions needlessy hard - a section of those with serious interest in the issue could have their votes marked down.
On the other hand, if they were keen to have something voted in, then they could use questions for which the answers have been bleated out by the media.

You also have the problem that for some issues, you don't need to know anything about it, to be able to cast a valid vote:

Referenda Question 1:
Should the Irish Consitution be amended with the following phrase:

"A man who is found guilty of murder, but who is subsequently found to be suffering from a mental illness, shall have their conviction quashed".

_YES
_NO

Now answer the following subsection:

1. How many murders took place in Ireland last year?
2. What proportion of the population is estimated to suffer from mental illnesses?

RedPlanet

Who determines the wording of Referenda today?
Is it anymore democratic than the 500 Chamber of randomers?

Akrasia

wording of current referenda is indeed extremely undemocratic (witness the debacle of recent abortion votes where the wording was such that there was no option for people to vote in favour of abortion, we could only choose between keeping it illegal or making it even more illegal)

In other democratic countries referenda can be called by the people if they collect a sufficient quantity of signatures. In this case, the referendum wording is the same as what appears on the top of the petition that people are asked to sign. This is a much more democratic way of doing things.

mountainyman

I don't think Daz is trolling, though it is an extreme example.

What is to stop a set within the 500 randomers seeking to manipulate events. Or even a cross between Jury Consulatnts, Private Detectives and Lobbyists trying to manipulate things.

he 'permanent government' would still exist.

MM

RedPlanet

mountainyman wrote:

I
What is to stop a set within the 500 randomers seeking to manipulate events. Or even a cross between Jury Consulatnts, Private Detectives and Lobbyists trying to manipulate things.

he 'permanent government' would still exist.

MM

Rubbish.
I'd have more confidence that 500 random people (chosen and maintaining their anonminity) would be less corruptable, then the existing political parties ("social partners" anyone?)

DadaKopf

In a large population, perhaps randomness could guard against such corruption or state capture by large parties.

Parties are basically mechines to secure control of the state through efficient national political organisation.

The flipside is that policy would be very discontinuous - even highly contradictory, and those in a position to set policy would probably not have too much expertise in how to run a country.

Though Athenian democracy worked on this basis, continuity was achieved through factionalising. So parties existed in a different form.

Few elected politicians do, but they usually have more time to be briefed about their portfolio. The current instrument to guard against this is a professional, full-time civil-service/bureaucracy. Parties are products of the industrial revolution and the nation-state.

But it's an interesting idea - if the media and lobbyists can't find out who is actually in charge, it's harder for them and other interests to taint the leadership. But this isn't remotely democratic.

Dar

I'd have more confidence that 500 random people (chosen and maintaining their anonminity) would be less corruptable, then the existing political parties ("social partners" anyone?)

I wouldn't question there integrity, just their competency. The current situation may not be ideal, but in my opinion it's still a hell of a lot better than having 500 random people chosen with complete confidentiality and no check as to their suitability to hold that post.

Akrasia

Dar wrote:

I wouldn't question there integrity, just their competency. The current situation may not be ideal, but in my opinion it's still a hell of a lot better than having 500 random people chosen with complete confidentiality and no check as to their suitability to hold that post.

the point of democracy is that every individual is an expert in their own self interest. specific qualifications are not needed.

Of course, the initial premise does not hold much water, because some individuals are patently not able to identify what is really in their own best interest (young children are one example, people with delusional mental illness are another, along with supporters of the progressive democrats)

However, the fact that individuals do not always act in their own genuine self interest is not a good argument to say that they should not have any say in how their own lives are run. All forms of elitist government assumes that the average person is unfit to make important decisions for themselves, while at the same time, assuming that the people who are chosen to represent us (ie, supporters of elitist government) are 'above average'


The truth is, that 'freedom' requires that people are free to make their own choices, even if that means they make mistakes. that argument is beyond dispute as far as I am concerned (though if anyone wants to try, feel free to make your own mistakes :P ). the only thing left to debate is whether or not we should aspire to be free and if so, to what degree

SeanW

Dar has a point:

In the U.S. just after slavery blacks couldn't vote because they had exactly such a system: voters had to pay a fee and answer a reading/knowledge question.

The question could be something ridiculously obscure (for a black person) or ridiculously easy for a white person (like sign your name)

then they enacted the "Grandfather clause" which waived the above requirments for anyone whos grandfathers were allowed to vote (a.k.a white people).

The system proposed above has been abused in the past and could easily be abused again if reinstated.

That said, it would be interesting to know if the war in Iraq would have been launched if it were put to a referendum that asked supporters to place an X on an unlabeled map to show where Iraq actually IS ...

Dar

Akrasia wrote:

The truth is, that 'freedom' requires that people are free to make their own choices, even if that means they make mistakes. that argument is beyond dispute as far as I am concerned (though if anyone wants to try, feel free to make your own mistakes :P ). the only thing left to debate is whether or not we should aspire to be free and if so, to what degree

True, but we are not taking about an individual making choices which affect their own life alone. We are talking about randomly choosing 500 people to make policy which would affect a population of millions.

RedPlanet

Dar wrote:

True, but we are not taking about an individual making choices which affect their own life alone. We are talking about randomly choosing 500 people to make policy which would affect a population of millions.

Not without the rest of the populations' consent tho (refrenda).
Besides, 500 people is a fair number.
More than the Dáil (166 members) and Seanad (60 members).
With the benefit that 500 randomers are not "career politicians", but rather ordinary folk.

RedPlanet

SeanW wrote:

In the U.S. just after slavery blacks couldn't vote because they had exactly such a system: voters had to pay a fee and answer a reading/knowledge question.
The system proposed above has been abused in the past and could easily be abused again if reinstated.

It is not really the same thing at all SeanW.
You are talking about an apartheid system that placed preconditions to voting. Not me, the illiterate are entirely capable of voting in my system.
They can blindly tick boxes if they so desire. Or maybe arrangements could be made to have the questions put to them orally.
I don't mind, i just want to insure that joe-eejit doesn't negate my hard studied vote by ticking the opposite box.

Attractive Nun

I could probably come up with a hundred reasons for and against this idea, and it's not a terrible suggestion by any means, but does have some major flaws. The most obvious (to me) of which is practical, the unintelligent and seemingly unproductive but actually very pertinent fact that people, in general, are stupid - especially when it comes to politics. Representative democracy does much to reduce the influence of this stupidity by concentrating administrative control on people who are paid to be experts. Yes, they are more open to corruption, but far less susceptable to ignorance and bandwagons. The constitutional protection that would be required to protect against the tyranny of the majority would be so omniscient that the courts would become unbelievably powerful. It would be a very different society, one that probably wouldnt work.

And for a few tasters of my other initial objections: "weighted voting" seriously undermines the fairly important concept that people should be equal before the law; international relations would be impossibe - what happens in a war???; how would society be protected from those 500 people colluding?; very few governers would have any expertise on the issues they govern; etc etc.

And, probably most importantly, have you any idea how many decisions have to made at various levels of government? A single ballot paper (especially with these questions) would take hours to fill in, and months to tally. I know I certainly wouldn't be bothered voting about issues like cycle helmets - turnouts would, I suspect, decrease greatly.

Akrasia

it takes a very clever person to recognise that most people are stupid.

What i mean is, whenever someone says that, they almost always mean 'most people are stupider than me'

Which again, reminds me of the survey that asks people to rate their own driving, and 80% of people believe themselves to be 'above average'


Most people are not stupid, they are just distracted. The average man in the pub could probably spin off reams of football trivia, but couldn't name 4 government ministers.
Their capacity to understand complex ideas is there, they just believe that knowledge of sport is more relevant and useful than knowledge about what propaganda career politicians are spouting at any given moment

RedPlanet

Attractive Nun wrote:

IRepresentative democracy does much to reduce the influence of this stupidity by concentrating administrative control on people who are paid to be experts.

Are you saying that (professional) politicians are paid to protect us from ourselves?

Attractive Nun wrote:

people should be equal before the law

People are equal before the law, my weighted voting system doesn't change that.
I think what you want to refer is to: One Man, One Vote
And i suppose i am accepting that is an out-moded concept.
Or at least a concept that could be improved.

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote:

Which again, reminds me of the survey that asks people to rate their own driving, and 80% of people believe themselves to be 'above average'

What percentage of people would you estimate have more than the average number of limbs?

ISAW

RedPlanet wrote:

I agree, just that since you don't know the standard means that you know less about the issue, therefore i'm counting your vote less.

wrong! this is in fact the kernel of the issue. I recall a Yes Minister episoide where Sir Humphry informs the PM that they could do an opinion poll and then asks him what he wants the results to be. He got whatever result he wanted by the way the questions were put.

In your example you have a legal issue but you weight votes dependent on what people know of the issue. this is asessed by questions. But who picks the questions? In your example statist beaurocrats are more deserving of a vote than presonal freedom advocated who don't like EU standards and are not interested in the "Eurosausage"

Now say you rephrase you questions to

1. Do you believe people should be allowed to wear what clothes they like?

2. Should a single manufacturer with a particular patent be allowed to have a law backing them up which allows them to dominate a market for a particular from of clothing?

3. If their are proven standards elsewhere which are shown to be safer than the EU standard should we adopt the lesser standard?


You idea also smacks of elitism. why for example should a minister for finance have to be an economist or a minister of Health a Medical doctor? Do they necessarily make better ministers because they have qualifications in their field? And even if they did why should someone with more academic knowledge of a field be preferable when making legislation in that field?

ISAW

RedPlanet wrote:

Are you saying that (professional) politicians are paid to protect us from ourselves?

People are equal before the law, my weighted voting system doesn't change that.
I think what you want to refer is to: One Man, One Vote
And i suppose i am accepting that is an out-moded concept.
Or at least a concept that could be improved.

But this is just elitism! You are saying that some people should get more than one vote and maybe some should get no vote. But on what criteria? Your criteria is it depends on their knowledge of what they are voting on. for starters thet isnt the way things work. People are elected for several years and we have to trust their judgement. But suppose we do away with politicians and have e voting on every issue for everyone. (I doint believe this would work by the way but suppose we have it). You are now saying that on every issue we turn on our TV or PC and vote but before we vote we are assessed on what we know about the subject on which we are voting.

But who outlines the assessment?

ISAW

One more point on this.
take a current referendum issue - Abortion.

do you really think that doctors should get two votes and other people only one?
Do you think that women should get two votes because only they can give birth?
do you think men should not get a vote?

How about people who dont know about biology but feel that unborn children have sould and abortion is wrong? Are they only entitles to half a vote because they dont have a degree in biology?

Gurgle

RedPlanet wrote:

so, your score on the subquestions determine how much your vote counts toward the issue.

I totally agree with the ideals here, but it would be a bit too open to abuse. The bureaucrats would find ever more interesting ways of weighting answers to suit their purposes. I can see QI style questions, where everyone 'knows' the wrong answer.

To be honest, my concept of a true democracy is an electronic voting system, permanently set up, with questions of policy continuously rolling through to be answered. Anyone with an interest is free to contribute their vote on any given issue within a certain time-frame.

A group of 20 or so elected representatives would be responsible for researching each topic and making all relevant information available through the press.

The implementation of each decision is then in the hands of the civil service.

democrates

The weighted voting idea is a difficult one for me to accept straight off. All votes are equal but some are more equal than others...

Many people who are moderate and/or busy raising their family/working/running a business etc aren't posessed of in-depth knowledge on all issues, whereas extremists often are. Therein lies a danger of leaving the field to headbangers, we can't depend on these always balancing out, for example the Dr. Frankenstiens vs the anti-vivisection grave-robbers.

If you took that credentials weighting tack further, you might also decide to weight votes based on I.Q. to ensure opinions might have been deduced from first principles rather than current dogma. Then you should really give weight to E.Q. too. And then educational qualifications. And work experience. And life experience. And success. And moral fibre. Unless the secret ballot is gone too that's a hell of a long test, whither voter turnout!

In fairness we discriminate to an extent as it is, under Article 16 of the constitution those with 'disability or incapacity' cannot vote. And elected representatives don't take all decisions, unelected public servants with varying transparency and oversight decide a lot, and aren't we paying through the nose to private sector vested interests sorry, 'independant consultants' to tell our 'leaders' what to do in our best interests?

Anyway, on the one hand yes, we do value credentials. An opinion expressed by a qualified and experienced doctor, solicitor etc is more credible on the face of it than one given by a lay person. "And a drunk on the bus told me how to get rich" (bagatelle-summer in dublin )

On the other hand that is not absolute. We know 'experts' can be mistaken, devious, immoral, or amoral. Flat earth, radium pillows, tobacco, thalidomide etc. etc. etc. etc. Most of us value the idea of 'a jury of your peers' rather than leaving all verdicts to 'legal eagles' for example, and think it would be foolish to risk all on any sacred credential cow.

There's a book "The wisdom of Crowds" by Malcolm Gladwell (also wrote The Tipping point) and the thesis in summary is "If you want to make a correct decision or solve a problem, large groups of people are smarter than a few experts". He cites many compelling examples such as the hick US farmers who out-perform Wall St. on diverse investments.

Of course that is not a case for ignorance, simply not to assign excessive importance to credentials, to realise the importance of simply-expressed ethics and insights into life, and to take action to back up your values. For me that was a key point of the movie Forrest Gump.

Consider this, most decisions are about what will work best for society, hence popular opinion which informs popular action is crucial. The valuable role of oft diametrically opposed 'expert' opinion in elections is to pesuade the many through rational debate backed by reliable data, rather than to expect us to surrender our influence over various aspects of our lives to our betters. We had that here before. Didn't go down too well.

To replace the Oireachtas would require a major constitutional referendum. EG Article 15 -

2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]1° The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State.


2° Provision may however be made by law for the creation or recognition of subordinate legislatures and for the powers and functions of these legislatures.


3.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]1° The Oireachtas may provide for the establishment or recognition of functional or vocational councils representing branches of the social and economic life of the people.


2° A law establishing or recognising any such council shall determine its rights, powers and duties, and its relation to the Oireachtas and to the Government."


Tactically I think direct-democracy measures are best evolved from the local level up. Gain experience based on lower-risk local pilot tests with Oireachteas support. Upon confidence only, roll out nation-wide and then following a succesful referendum to the national collaboration level.

Since as it were "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is", and this is a political theory thread, apologies to some for my practical points.

Attractive Nun

A good month and a bit late, but...

RedPlanet wrote:

Are you saying that (professional) politicians are paid to protect us from ourselves?

Not at all. Politicians are paid to better society, because most people recognise that specialisation is necessary for the betterment of society. Take the budget. It's simply naive to think that anyone could just walk off the street, have a look at some reports for a few weeks, and deliver a sensible budget. That is essentially what this system would come down to. The complex understanding of macroeconomics necessary to come up with a budget is not something that can be learned quickly. Look at Brian Cowen; the man has years of ministerial experience; a degree in law; a huge team of bureaucrats surrounding him; and he still can't manage to go anywhere near his targets.

RedPlanet wrote:

People are equal before the law, my weighted voting system doesn't change that.
I think what you want to refer is to: One Man, One Vote
And i suppose i am accepting that is an out-moded concept.
Or at least a concept that could be improved.

In fairness, one man, one vote arises from people being equal before the law. This system would create a heavily aristocratic society. Just think about it: who knows most about politics? University graduates, high wage earners, wasters like us who can afford to sit on the Internet all day. While I am vaguely attracted to the idea that knowledge earns power, it's unworkable.

Akrasia wrote:

it takes a very clever person to recognise that most people are stupid.

What i mean is, whenever someone says that, they almost always mean 'most people are stupider than me'

Which again, reminds me of the survey that asks people to rate their own driving, and 80% of people believe themselves to be 'above average'


Most people are not stupid, they are just distracted. The average man in the pub could probably spin off reams of football trivia, but couldn't name 4 government ministers.
Their capacity to understand complex ideas is there, they just believe that knowledge of sport is more relevant and useful than knowledge about what propaganda career politicians are spouting at any given moment

Yes, I'm a big arrogant know-it-all, and you're just deadly. People will never be as interested in politics as they are in sports, and you know that full well. There's nothing wrong with that, people are interested in different things, and there's nothing inherently superior about having an interest in politics than there is about having an interest in fashion, or football, or Donkey-Kong. Sports is part of the entertainment industry, politics is boring. I study politics, and even I'm gonna switch off when it comes to debating the minute issues of government policy. It's difficult enough to engage people in genuinely interesting topics like political ideology, elections or hypothetical debates like this - try getting them excited about raising the funds to repair some godforesaken road in the back arse of Tipperary. It's not going to happen.

PHB

You should read Moisei Ostrogorski, Democracy and the Organisation of Political Parties. Incredibly insightful book on why Parties are fundamentally undemocratic.

Dontico

i've been trying to come with a new more effience model to replace democracy.
what you are suggesting is ok. but i dont the subquestion part makes sence. who decides what questions are relevent? what subject better covers an issue?

example: a contraversial one.

abortion to be legalised.

is it a religious issue? should only people that have studied the bible have a say?
it is it an economic issue? should only economist have a say?
is it an anthropological or cultural issue?
what about the idea of using unwanted children for miltary purposes?

RedPlanet

Dontico wrote:

who decides what questions are relevent? what subject better covers an issue?

The Chamber of 500 Randomers, in my OP.
But yes there should be a sort of Pool of Ideas from the general public that the 500 Randomers choose from.
Since abortion is a surgical procedure i would think the subquestions would be tailored toward the medical/physiological/historical angle. However since it is also a contentious ethical issue (that spans religious doctrines) i see no immediate problem with having that reflected in the subquestions.
However if i were in the Chamber myself, i would personally argue strict secularity to try to keep the religious questions off the ballot, arguing that they are irrelevant and non-factual.
But there's no reason why the subquestions about abortion cannot contain economic, cultural, anthropological, medical questions.
In fact, they probably should all be included.

The idea of using "unwanted" children for military purposes could certainly be among the Pool of Ideas; it just seems a bit OTT and less likely to be selected for public referendum by the Chamber of Randomers.