≡?
Give us a chance.
Any candidate for the Stochastic Party, once in office, will vote based on a public and provably random process.
NOTE: currently, we will only run for legislative offices as they are most amenable to our principles. With further development of our techniques we may pursue the executive and judicial branches (with beaurocratic departments the most difficult, but possibly most valuable).
Legistlation is not only voting on proposals others submit, but also submitting proposals oneself. To implement this, once per <cycle> our candidates will generate a proposal from a Markov chain trained on the set of already accepted proposals (and so simultaneously embodying the concept of precedent). We're confident that most people (legal professionals included) won't be able to tell the difference anyway.
In order to be consistent with our policy of supporting randomness in the political process, we will be inconsistent with our policy of voting randomly: we will support any proposal to modify the process so that the randomness is built-in.
Q: Doesn't supporting one policy consistently negate your claim to complete randomness?
A: We do not claim to be completely random as there is no such thing as complete randomness. Randomness must by definition always be restricted to a domain. We appeal on two fronts: the fact that we use random processes to make decisions and the particular domain to which we apply those processes.
We do not advocate that anyone vote for the Stocastic Party. Instead, we advocate that voters choose using a uniformly random distribution applied over the domain of voting choices.
For further information, or to put yourself forward as a candidate for office, email us at stochasticparty AT gmail DOT com.