1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Future of Federal Oversight Panels in the USA

Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by joe1776, Sep 27, 2020.

  1. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,863
    Ratings:
    +1,450
    Religion:
    None
    oversight: management by overseeing the performance or operation of a person or group


    These panels of, let's say 33 members, will be selected randomly by computer from a list of people to eliminate the bias inherent in appointment or election, members will have a very high average score on tests of their ability to reason.

    The Election Oversight Panel: Using the concept of binding arbitration, an election oversight panel, can quickly settle disputed election results. This would make it impossible for the Republicans or Democrats to steal a close election using the Supreme Court.

    The Criminal Justice Oversight Panel: Giving bullies the power to enforce the law will result in abuses against citizens in general but citizens of minority groups in particular. A federal oversight panel will insure that local law enforcement officers with a pattern of abuse are quickly fired or the state will lose federal funding.

    The National Security Classification Oversight Panel: With the release of the Ellsberg papers, we learned there has not been a US President in recent memory who has not abused the Secret and Top Secret document classification to hide ignoble activity. The same can be said of the agencies involved with national security. They need oversight to keep this behavior minimized.
     
  2. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    9,000
    Ratings:
    +7,894
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    .....and the cracked record continues to revolve.............
     
  3. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    39,318
    Ratings:
    +13,207
    Religion:
    Judaism
    What could possibly go wrong?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    28,977
    Ratings:
    +10,246
    Religion:
    dystopian Christian
    I like it with some additions. I think we could have some anointed allies who contribute people to help. So for example our neighbors to the North and South, Canada and Mexico could contribute five people each. There would have to be swearing in and some vetting by four randomly chosen US governors. The honored guests would be wined and dined and treated with honors and have special visiting privileges ever after.

    I don't know that it would work. I'd want to hear from people with experience such as prosecutors, judges, commissioners, sheriffs, NSA, special agents, etc. They'd be able to come up with some public function that would work. One main problem is that this oversight panel must be able to keep secrets and must have immunity from the results of their decisions, but this puts them into a position to accept bribes. I don't know how to make it work.

    They have this in US Congress. I don't remember what its called.
     
  5. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,863
    Ratings:
    +1,450
    Religion:
    None
    Can you think of anything? I'm open to debate if you're up to it.
     
  6. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,863
    Ratings:
    +1,450
    Religion:
    None
    I don't like your vetting idea because that invites partisan bias. However, I like the idea of the panel being comprised of a percentage of our neighbors.

    It would be difficult and dumb to try to bribe 33 federal panel members.

    Why would the panel need to keep secrets? I had in mind that their work could be done online and thus totally transparent.

    It's ineffective because of bias. For example, the Republican controlled Senate cannot be expected to oversee the use of the Top Secret classification of a Republican president.
     
  7. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    28,977
    Ratings:
    +10,246
    Religion:
    dystopian Christian
    You believe zero bias is possible, but I don't. Also yes they will have to keep secrets sometimes.
     
  8. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,863
    Ratings:
    +1,450
    Religion:
    None
    Let's put you in the shoes of a black citizen. Would you trust an appointment by four white governors to be unbiased over a selection done randomly by computer?

    Would you trust a panel that kept secrets over one that debated-discussed their decision in writing and online?

    The online criminal justice oversight panel should make black citizens aware that everything possible is being done to insure fairness and therefore protest is unnecessary.
     
  9. Amanaki

    Amanaki Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    11,784
    Ratings:
    +7,125
    Religion:
    Sunni Islam
    So you are back again? Your negative writing style made you not as hidden as you thought. How many times are you going to make a new profile?
     
  10. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    28,977
    Ratings:
    +10,246
    Religion:
    dystopian Christian
    Vetting of four randomly chosen governors from all states. They don't choose. They vett, and that is public. Who better than publicly elected officials to do the vetting? Now in my thought if a computer just randomly chooses then you're going to get some people who will personally benefit a lot and be tempted by bribes.

    When it comes to law enforcement, some things have to be secret such as the officer's addresses and families. Those chosen must be able to keep those secrets. Nobody will accept a system that doesn't.

    The entire problem is that there have to be secrets. Would you like to be on public camera if you get arrested for something? Would you like all police to wear cameras in which absolutely everything they see can be reviewed by anyone on the internet? I don't think you would. I don't want people to know and see every time I get arrested. Some things need to be secret, and there is no way around that.

    I wasn't aware we were discussing black citizens versus other citizens. It seems like the conversation has curved. You listed elections, criminal oversight and national security. I had no idea you wanted to discuss something as complicated as how black people feel about law enforcement. When I said 'Bias' I wasn't at all talking about racial bias, but it sounds like you were. Thus I misunderstood the gravity of your comment.
     
  11. Stevicus

    Stevicus Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    14,640
    Ratings:
    +7,775
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Commies where?
     
  12. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    30,263
    Ratings:
    +11,988
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    I obviously can't speak for @Jayhawker Soule but im thinking where's the oversight panel for those who are writing the code?
     
  13. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    30,263
    Ratings:
    +11,988
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    Then the oversight panel will need its own oversight panel , and that panel will need its own oversight panel, and that panel will need its own oversight panel, and that panel will need its own oversight panel, and that panel will need its own oversight panel and.... help!!!!.... I can't stop!!!
     
  14. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,863
    Ratings:
    +1,450
    Religion:
    None
    The random selection insures that some of the members will be biased on every issue but the size (33) of the panel makes it highly unlikely that the majority will be on the wrong side of any issue because of bias.

    OK, agreed. When you wrote "secrets" I was thinking of information crucial to the decision.

    I didn't emphasize racial bias in the OP but I did say:

    Giving bullies the power to enforce the law will result in abuses against citizens in general but citizens of minority groups in particular.
     
  15. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,863
    Ratings:
    +1,450
    Religion:
    None
    I envision panels like this being tested online as advisory panels and the very first panel, let's call it a management panel, would not make policy decisions. It's function would be limited to creating the panels and managing their use including feedback.

    By the way, Bernie Sanders very recently has proposed an election oversight panel (although he didn't call it that nor did he describe its form).
     
  16. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,863
    Ratings:
    +1,450
    Religion:
    None
    No, let's use RF as a model. The moderators would represent the management panel. They won't make policy decisions. Their function is limited to making the process work as designed.
     
  17. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    28,977
    Ratings:
    +10,246
    Religion:
    dystopian Christian
    I suppose 33 is based on a value of n that you have calculated has a high probability of a mean close to the population mean. What if that population mean is biased? For example in the US a majority of the population is white.

    When it comes to blacks in areas where law enforcement has been heavy handed for generations I think that we need something a little more than just federal oversight. For example how are blacks going to take seriously any such high level action? There has always been federal oversight, theoretically. They are going to want something entirely new...like having the firefighters handle policing...or having all police wear bells on their necks. Just having federal oversight doesn't sound very impressive. If you believed the police wanted to oppress you and had stories to back it up going back two or three generations do you think federal oversight would satisfy you?
     
  18. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,863
    Ratings:
    +1,450
    Religion:
    None
    No, population wasn't a consideration. Here's the problem: The higher the number of panel members, the less chance that a bias will decide the outcome of a majority vote. However, the higher the number of panel members, the more difficult it would be manage a useful debate-discussion period. So, the number 33 just "seems about right" but it isn't etched in stone.

    You make a valid point, but what are the realistic options? If anyone can come up with a better idea, I'd be all for it.
     
  19. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    28,977
    Ratings:
    +10,246
    Religion:
    dystopian Christian
    This doesn't follow to me, because sometimes the population is biased against minorities. The larger your sample size the closer your mean value will be to the population, so in a population that is clueless about what its like to be latino, gay, black or someone with attention deficit disorder you'll get a representative group of people who are on the whole also clueless about those things. That to me is bias.

    We could go back to the days when police weren't expected to prevent crimes. The term 'police' originally refers to street sweepers. We could enable citizens to patrol their areas instead and conduct citizens arrests. This would require changing the way courts functioned, too. Basically we could go back in time and re-learn how to enforce the laws. We could also separate traffic laws from criminal laws, so that street patrols would not have anything to do with felonies. Basically we just slacken the control of crime that is handled directly and suppress the resulting litigation that might ensue. Its not necessarily better than your idea, but its at least one alternative.
     
  20. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,863
    Ratings:
    +1,450
    Religion:
    None
    Your premise is that, unless people belong to a minority group, they will hold a bias. That's just not true. I think racial bias has to do with an inflated ego, a need to feel superior. a human problem not a white problem.

    Another factor is that the minorities grouped together are 40% of the population and rising. So, there's not much concern of white dominance on the panel of 33..

    As I pointed out in the OP, the essential problem is that if you give bullies power, they will abuse it. If our solution involves more amateurs in doing police work, I think that will only make the oversight more difficult with more bullies to weed out.
     
    #20 joe1776, Sep 28, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2020
Loading...