The issue with randomly selected representation is that the support staff start to become the ones who effectively make the decisions.
This is the same issue with term limits (which to be clear, I'm in favor of, but we have to go in with our eyes open), which is that e.g. the congressional staffers gain power, especially if they persist across the end of the term limit.
In these kinds of cases, you almost need term limits for staff, which feels pretty cruel and arbitrary - "Thank you for making a career in public service but you are now legally barred from your chosen career"
> This is the same issue with term limits (which to be clear, I'm in favor of, but we have to go in with our eyes open), which is that e.g. the congressional staffers gain power, especially if they persist across the end of the term limit.
Term limits are a bad hack trying to fix the problem that the status quo electoral system presents (1) too few meaningful choices, and (2) largely as a consequence of #1 and relatively stable local ideological mixes, features very strong incumbency preferences.
Fix the electoral system to resolve that (lots of ways to do that), and the broken idea of term limits stops being an attractive way to pretend that you are doing something without actually fixing the problems.
Term limits seem fine, just make them a reasonable length. Say, three of their full six year terms for a Senator seems fine for example. Or maybe allow states to elect one senator to a fourth term (logically this will always be their senior senator) but never both and no fifth terms. [I'm assuming we'll allow, as for Presidents, an incomplete first term, for senators that might be by election to replace another out of sequence]
A freshman senator might be intimidated by an aide who knows DC like the back of their hand after forty years in the office back room, but when they're back for their second, let alone third term, that old hack doesn't know the first thing about the actual job, that aide isn't in those meetings hashing out a 2am compromise with the White House, and they're not in a town hall back home trying to explain to some fellow who has never left Kentucky why we need to spend so much money on a Navy they've never seen.
Another alternative, which existing American politicians will hate but too bad, is age limits. For example the UK's Supreme Court all have to retire by age 75. I can't imagine a lot of the oldest senators are effective legislators, they'd rather be in bed than get stuff done. So, age them out.
Well, to be fair, I would also be in favor of banning lobbying entirely, which I recognize is also problematic - then you have laws being written based on sub rosa back room deals, since lobbying is to a certain degree "human relationships in the context of power dynamics" aka politics.
Banning lobbying would be effectively a ban on all political speech. Because that's what lobbying is: political speech. For example, yesterday I sent a bunch of letters to my elected politicians talking about the Rio Grande Plan[0]. That makes me a Rio Grande Plan lobbyist. Louis Rossmann spent several years traveling across-country to speak about right-to-repair[1] laws. That makes him a right-to-repair lobbyist.
What we actually are angry about is the presence of money in politics. American political campaigns burn money like nothing else, which is akin to being in a government meeting where everyone is shouting over one another, like to the point where people are bringing in loudspeakers and megaphones. If that example were a real situation, it would be entirely legal to go and have police officers take away the megaphones, and tell people to quiet down and take their turn.
But because money is involved, SCOTUS says that, no, shouting over everyone else with a big pile of cash is TOTALLY protected speech. Any money at all that is to effect political speech is inherently protected. And so we have campaign seasons that burn billions of dollars, and people who are basically not listened to, because all the anti-bribery law that was supposed to stop the election fundraising arms race got thrown out over a decade ago.
[0] A citizen-led plan to reactivate Salt Lake City's historic train station and reroute our regional rail service over to it.
[1] Laws that would make it easier to purchase repair parts for broken electronics and prohibit the use of digital locks to prevent the repair of said electronics.
I have questions here, a lot of lobbying is done by:
a) trade organizations (we're all the onion farmers in Nebraska and want to make sure the Nebraska legislature doesn't pass laws that negatively impact us and promote laws that help us)
and
b) activist organizations (we're a coalition of organizations that protect water usage in the Mississippi delta and want to pass laws that promote conservation in those states)
Those groups often choose to retain professional lobbyists but will also send groups of interested parties to lobby who are not professional lobbyists.
Do you also ban trade organizations and activist organizations in this case? Do you carve out exceptions for them and just ban the "freelance" lobbyists? Most lobbying is meeting with legislators and talking with them about issues, educating them. How do you ban that without making legislators effectively useless (or if you're cynical, even more useless)?
I can't really think of any "wholesale all lobbying forbidden", but at least for specific industries there are a couple. "WHO FCTC Article 5.3" which is about limiting the influence of tobacco companies is probably the first that comes to mind, and the most famous example. Singapore I think recently done some legislative changes around lobbying as well, but I'd confess to not knowing much about it, maybe someone here could fill out the blanks if they have the knowledge already.
Maybe not possible in the specific country you're thinking about, with their specific implementation of "freedom of speech", but it's hardly the only one, and not all of them are incompatible with outlawing lobbying (if the US one even is, I dunno).
If you try to ban lobbying you will incidentally criminalize basically all political speech. White papers are a form of lobbying, providing testimony is a form of lobbying, running an ad campaign is lobbying, speaking with your congressional representative is lobbying.
This notion always puzzles me. It's not a complex idea.
Just like, say, banning GMO bananas. But such regulation is a whole text which may need to define or refer to definitions of "GMO" and "banana", specify what's banned, exemptions, enforcement authority, penalties, and so on. Maybe 10 pages of legalese. It requires time, expertise, research. But it's still just a ban on GMO bananas.
Or a programmed UI button to show a message. Simple. The specifics of the execution are a separate matter.
It's not "indescribable", but no one will describe it to you ad hoc and expecting it is silly.
Running a government and banning the representatives of your economy from talking to you is insanely stupid.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with lobbying, it is an essential part of the government and can not be legislated away, without crippling the entire country.
Great. Now we have inexperienced legislators, inexperienced aides, and experienced lobbyists. That's definitely going to be an improvement rather than an absolute catastrophe.
Term limits are like so many populist ideas: they sound great until you think at all about the consequences.
Effective government requires people with a long tenure. That's how you learn how the system operates, that's how you build the relationships that allow you to get things done, and that's how you build the reputation that allows you to get people to believe in what you say and accomplish things.
In my own defense, the kinds of term limits I'm talking about are much lengthier than most people start out wanting, I think. I would term limit senators at 5 terms, perhaps, and representatives at 12 or 15? I think the issue is not so much long tenures per se as losing relevance by spending an entire lifetime in one position in government.
Yeah, I feel like our form of representative democracy is the least bad option. At the very least, office-holders aren't entitled to their office beyond their term unless they're re-elected.
The fundamental problem is that governing is boring, complicated, and unfulfilling to most people. The most impactful elections to citizens' day-to-day lives (i.e., local offices, state legislatures, and primaries for those) have absolutely abysmal participation rates, even in states that bend over backwards with voter accessibility.
I'll take inexperienced legislators with fresh ideas who understand how the world actually works over 80 year old careerists whose only skill is fundraising and who still see the world through the lens of Cold War great man politics. Long tenure is how you get entrenched power dynamics, dynasties and eventually dictatorships, and government locked in eternal stasis and unable to adapt to modernity.
I'm really starting to think Thomas Jefferson was right and every 20 years we should just burn Washington to the ground, rip up the Constitution, hang every politician and start over, and make the new blood walk through the corpses on their way to work just to keep the fear of God fresh in their hearts.
FFS, Hillary Clinton had the long tenure. She had experience - implicitly as first lady, and explicitly as governor and secretary of state. She campaigned on policy. She lost to a buffoon conman sex pest with no political experience whose reputation hitherto was playing himself on tv.
Am I saying Hillary Clinton was a better person than Donald Trump? No. I'm not even saying she would have been a particularly good President. But I'm just pointing out how little "reputation" actually matters to American voters, because she was obviously vastly more qualified for the job, and if that mattered it wouldn't have been a contest at all. But the one thing Americans hate more than an experienced politician is an experienced legacy politician. FFS the most popular American President in recent history was an actor who had Alzheimers in office, and got advice from his wife's astrologer.
What he have is already an absolute catastrophe, an utter circus. The competent, well-meaning civic minded politicians you're referring to don't exist, nor does the educated, discerning voter base necessary to put them into office. People voted for Donald Trump the second time because they thought he could control the price of eggs. Like there was a fucking knob somewhere and Joe Biden just didn't want to turn it.
The least we can do is try to minimize the damage any specific idiot (in the voting booth or in office) might cause.
The main problem with choosing representatives by lottery is that the average person just doesn't want to do the job. I know I wouldn't. It's about as appealing as having to do jury duty for three years.
The book proposes financial incentives as a way to address this reluctance, such as paying the person 1.5 times their current salary. But that seems like it will lead to representatives who are only doing it for the money, not because they care about doing a good job.
Part of me wonders what would happen if a lottery were used not to select representatives from among the population at large, but from among the candidates who have won their parties' respective primaries. Of course, then you'd have to decide whether to use weighted selections (which would strongly favor the entrenched parties) or non-weighted (which would give a strong edge to minor parties).
But realistically, sensible term limits seem like they would help achieve a lot of what the proposed lottocracy system would achieve.
This is the premise of The Napoleon of Notting Hill by G. K. Chesterton. In 1984 (100 years after the writing of the book), the King of England is now selected by lottery. Much wildness ensues.
I imagine the random person, if they were to accept, would likely find themselves out of depth and simply outsource most of the job to whoever convinces them they're the right choice.
The system would then morph into a variant of representative democracy. Instead of millions voting for, say, around a thousand of various level representatives, you get a random thousand "voting" for "consultants".
These consultants would be directly hired by the random thousand to do the work for them. They would predicably have marketing campaigns to make themselves seem the right pick. They might even offer their services for free. Demagoguery and corporate sponsorship as usual.
In the end 1000 people would hire, say, 1-1000 consultants to represent them. Thus emulating the original process, or worse. The only difference is the tiny electorate, which increases volatility.
If you'd like to regulate it to prevent this, you'd have to expend an effort and fight similar pressures as with doing it in any other system.
I don’t think it solves the core limitation of democracy - limits you to lowest common denominator of what the man on the street thinks. Who is by definition of average intelligence.
It’s all sorts of rubbish and not conducive to solving problems decisively but seems to be the only system where power doesn’t get monopolized
Having said that, it doesn't seem obvious to me that elected power is actually all that powerful, compared to unelected powers like corporations. I think you could use the same reasoning as pro-sortition arguments, but to argue for more democracy and elections, not less. Or at least that a state/citizen-focused theory of power is inadequate. (Raymond Geuss talks more about this.)
There is a lot of potential in this. Not just for government democracy, but for also introducing democratic elements into tech/AI policy, when that tech has impact comparable to many governments.
I worked in tech, and after some formative experiences, shifted to working on helping ensuring ensure that tech's impact on society can serve the public interest. But that leaves the question of what "what is the public interest"?
Sortitition / lottocracy / deliberative democracy / mini-publics all roughly refer to the same way to answer that question — providing a representative microcosm with the space to deeply examine an issue, and come to a set of recommendations and decisions on it. Unlike with electoral democracy, it's faster to spin up and experiment with, and it's harder for bad actors to entrench power (elections can be useful, but they're one of many tools in the democratic toolbelt).
I've now started an organization focusing on applying this and other democratic paradigms to decision-making about AI (https://aidemocracyfoundation.org/) as a way to solve a variety of challenging governance problems across the AI stack.
If you're curious about it, our ICML paper goes into more detail: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.09222 .
We still need elections: There are policy decisions that really need to follow popular support; and there are situations where the general public needs to be able to overrule the legislature. (For example, marijuana legalization in Massachusetts was by a ballot initiative.)
That being said:
1: I think some aspect of randomly choosing legislative bodies helps avoid leaders who are power-seeking.
I doubt this would work better. the average person simply isn't a good executive. they'd end up getting dominated by the assertive folks. a simpler and easier solution to our problems to enforce approval voting across all elections, local, state and national, which will easily allow for moderates to siphon all votes and moderate the country drastically.
I think this idea (which is properly called sortition) would work even better if combined with the normal kind of democracy.
Most western democracies already have a two-chamber system (commons/lords, congress/senate etc), but those two chambers are elected in very similar ways. Instead, we could make one of them elected by sortition, while keeping the other one a traditional democracy.
I'd personally split the sortition part into per-area committees. There'd be a main committee with members taken from the general populace, whose only job would be to create the rules of who can be chosen for which committee (e.g. only qualified doctors for medicine). That main committee would also manage inter-committee disputes, in cases where it's not obvious whether a particular committee should be given the right to vote on a particular bill.
This is the kind of naive nonsense that children come up with. Anyone who has done jury service knows how thick and incompetent a random sampling of the population is.
If you want effective rulers, you need Roman democracy. Each position is held only for a year, and you either win election to the next rank, or you’re out.
Corbyns and Bernies can’t just sit in the same seat for 50 years without ever doing anything. Morons can’t get to be ruler. Every step is an intense competition, encouraging boldness in public service.
They also had an amazing system for war declarations… only those eligible to fight were eligible to vote whether to declare war. The old and the weak were not allowed to vote in those specific ballots.
The "let's pick people at random to discuss hairy topics" has been done at least three times in France in the form of "Convention Citoyenne".
In each case, people came up with relatively "popular" solutions (one of them is still in progress)
In each case, the elected officials all but ignored the output, on the ground that the body had not been elected, was manipulated by experts, had no responsibility and accountability, etc...
Anyone who solves this will indeed have found an improvement over elective democracy.
In the case of the US, a lower hanging fruit would be getting out of "elections that can easily be bought by corporations with litteral money".
I think a much more "American" style of political competition would be to have elected politicians compete at various levels to determine who gets to move on to the next higher position. They already seem to do this informally in many cases by progressing through a career as a politician so why not formalize it? That way instead of your advancement being determined by your party officials or your fundraising it could be based on how well you governed at each level of office with the winner determined by measurable improvements they made.
It would be better to hold referendums instead. An important decision should be brought directly to the populace rather than be driven by the whims of the currently elected party in power (regardless of political stripes). Examples of important questions are: Should we allow X people to immigrate per year? Should we go to war with country Y?Should the new tax rate be Z?
The Swiss do this. They are one of the populations most satisfied with their government. Referendums work.
“I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.” -- William F. Buckley.
Now more than ever. See "Franchise" (1955) by Isaac Asimov for an efficient version.
Mr. Buckley may or may not be shocked, but he's certainly a vocal opponent of a competent effective government, so all of his thoughts on how he'd prefer to be governed should be ignored with extreme prejudice.
According to YOU. What a very poor all or nothing statement. And the reader should never listen to someone who claims all or nothing here or there. Nope.
Perhaps throw a bridle on your unbridled "kindly fuck off nuance" view.
Would you rather be treated (medically) by the first 2000 people? Do you think code will be written better by the first 2000? I get being unhappy about current political class, but this kind of claims is wild to me.
> In the original comparison second category of people have much higher intellect than average.
I think that intellect may sometimes be weakly and unreliably associated with some kinds of competence, but not with integrity, which is as important. I think power seekers are self-selecting to be more self-serving.
Issue with your original statement is that it implies negative correlation between intellect and being good politician. All the issues you describe (both being self serving and power seeking) apply to anyone regardless to their intellect (and I still think they apply less to people of high intellect just because they see bigger picture, but I might be wrong).
We need to optimize for less self serving and more integrity but we should strive for smarter people up there too.
I did miss that one time, but they spend a lot more words calling it "new". And I read their table of contents which also didn't spend any significant time on history.
What "most countries" have a two-party system? From the summary below, most democracies actually seem to not have one. Spain, for example, used to be rather binary in early 2k, but its parliament has diversified since.
Maybe Americans should question why new parties cannot be formed that actually represent their people instead of looking to replace democracy entirely with...a lottery? I can't comment further because I am not American.
New Zealand isn’t on that list, but two parties generally take 70-80% of the vote. Last election (~65%) was an outlier due to the two leaders being pretty unpopular.
However, NZ has a proportional voting system that leads to coalitions forming governments. This is considered a good thing, but can lead to…interesting outcomes. The current government is very much the dog being wagged by a couple of nasty tails. Current PM is a weak “I've run a company so can run a country” type.
He was successful at Air NZ from memory. But they're completely different jobs. For example, he cut services and jobs which helped increase profits. Not uncommon for an airline. The same approach when running a country is disastrous and not uncommon for out of touch neoliberals like Luxon.
His management experience at Air NZ has not correlated with strong leadership. Compare him with the previous PM (Jacinda Ardern) and most Kiwis, even the right, would agree she handled things better. A few lefties like myself think she could have done more (especially wrt to housing policy) with the immense political capital she had just before Covid, but oh well.
Oh it could be much, much worse. I can only imagine the harebrained ideas that would be popular. No more taxes of any kind. Free beer and cigarettes. Monthly checks of, I don't know, $10k a person.
At some point you need adults in the room(in mind, not age). Our system is obviously not great, but this is a way to make it much worse.
Our current system works very well. It provides predictability and protects the rights of people. That's also why it's heavily biased against rapid changes. It's not _perfect_ for sure.
But the sortition-based systems are in general quite terrible exactly because they lack the feedback loops that keep societies stable. The main problem with the current administration, for example, is its disdain for these checks and balances and desire to move fast and break all the written and unwritten traditions.
There are also examples of failed sortition-based systems. I can give you the Soviet Union as one example. On paper, it was ruled by the Supreme Council ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Soviet_of_the_Soviet_U... ). Its delegates were chosen mostly randomly from workers and then approved by a public vote. Yet it was a complete rubber-stamp organization with zero actual power.
Sortition made sure of that, people couldn't form reliable alliances and power-hungry people who could initiate real reforms almost never actually got chosen.
Social media is the problem. We weren't this polarized until after the Bush admin, right as everyone on the planet got online.
Politics used to be civil. Republicans and Democrats in Congress used to go out to lunch together. Hyper online discourse and algorithms that boost rage ended that.
We're all being taught to foam at the mouth to increase screen time.
There have been brief periods where civility was normal, but politics and extreme heated emotion and polarization are the norm. Murder, mayhem, riots, extreme, ridiculous mud-slinging, and simmering turmoil have been the default state for a majority of human history.
Social media has exacerbated things in some ways, but in others, it's imposed an artificial civility as people get settled into their bubbles and vent online instead of taking action.
Just look at all the political violence in each decade of the 20th century in the US. Look at all the bombings, arson, murder, riots since 1950.
The dynamics have changed, but it'll be decades or more before humanity is anywhere near culturally settled down with the internet and instant global communication. It's already a net good, but massive online platforms and entrenched power players manipulating narratives and so on still need to be calibrated in policy.
The civility you remember might simply have been that all the violence wasn't being reported and headlining in major outlets 24/7. The threshold for newsworthy events and the willing participation of news outlets in managing perception created a very sterile and civil seeming facade over what's been more or less constant chaos.
The George W. Bush era (not administration) was very polarized.
When I read his memoir, he didn't come across as polarized, but more naive about polarization in the media. He did mention that he regretted not having a better media presence.
The post-war partisan environment was pretty unique in American history for its civility and substantial overlap between the two parties. The late 19th century had a level of partisanship comparable to today, though much of it was filtered through ethnic and religious identities in a way that would be unfamiliar to people today. In many ways, our modern political environment is a reversion to the mean. I wouldn’t bet money on social media specifically being the primary driver of this change (though I do think the collapse in barriers to sharing information has allowed for partisanship identity to be formed along ideological lines, rather than geographical or cultural lines, in a way that is unique.)
I understand the sentiment, but "Republicans and Democrats" doesn't sound appealing, it makes my blood boil, and certainly you are thinking "this idiot's been brainwashed by social media to think that's a good thing!", maybe, fair. But I think maybe democrats shouldn'tve been doing that during 2012 and playing "they go low, we go high" when they were holding a justice position from a centrist candidate a "sensible" congress wouldve passed, I don't think they should've done that when Bush cried about WMDs, and most recently I don't think they should continue to just "have lunch" after January 6th. I'm goddamn tired of complicit democrats.
Why not Plebiscites, updated for the technological age, could function as a mass interface: swipe-based decisions on budgets and policy, where governance emerges from an aggregated collective consciousness rather than elite mediation… thoughts?
The diagnosis I largely agree with. To the point I no longer identify as a (small-d) democrat, it is the tyrrany of the mob's choice of (usually reprehensible) representative, who will have lied and pacted with corrupt elites to obtain his/her position, and been nominally elected by the ignorant. Anyone who wants power should by that fact be excluded. The solution however (lottery-election) is absurd. We should instead restrict the franchise by exam to provably non-ignorant, non-evil critical thinkers so that we get representatives who are non-sociopaths that we can respect.
> We should instead restrict the franchise by exam to provably non-ignorant, non-evil critical thinkers so that we get representatives who are non-sociopaths that we can respect.
How do we prove non-evil?
Also the exam part brings to mind the Chinese imperial exams for civil service.
I don't know whether that's good or bad, it didn't work out well for them.
For a critical thinking exam, you should be able to show that you can decipher political gobledegook, identify lies and platitiudes, strawman arguments etc(there would be much less of it anyway as in a restricted franchise very few with votes would be swayed by it, which is the point.)
Non-evilness would be shown by answering questions designed to test basic empathy, and also by the lack of recent recorded crimes or misdemenours.
Two things I find very strange about the criticisms of sortition, as opposed to elections:
1) There are very few prerequisites for electoral candidates, mostly just age minimums (with no maximums). In some but not all cases there's a residency requirement, and in the case of the POTUS, a birthright citizenship requirement. Otherwise, there is no specific requirement for intelligence, knowledge, experience, ethics, etc. Basically, any random citizen who's old enough can run, and win, as long as they can somehow convince enough other people to vote for them. And there are some incredible dumbasses who get elected; I'll mention my own Senator Ron Johnson as particularly noteworthy in that department, but the list is quite long IMO.
2) The random voters who are so distrusted by critics of sortition are the very same people who are entrusted with voting for the candidates in elections that are supposedly superior to sortition. How exactly is that supposed to work, where that outcome, election outcomes, are magically better than the outcomes of voters deliberating among themselves?
What I like about sortition is that I think the odds are a lot better to select honest, good-intentioned, non-corrupt people by lot than by election. The latter tends to pick out the power-hungry, and in a political system where campaigns are privately financed, elections also tend to pick out the financially corrupt.
The situation would be a lot different if for example we had stringent standardized tests as prerequisites for political office, but we don't. Ironically, you have to pass the bar to be a lawyer, but you don't have to pass the bar to be a lawmaker.
Couple questions .... what is the author's point of origin and experience with "democracy" and/or "democracies"? I mention this as the founding principals of this Lottery thing are more or less "complaints" and not values or principals really. It is very slasdash and hollow.
But this is a fun thought experiment so lets .... move on.
Why *exactly* is democracy the absolute best form of govt known to mankind?
You just kinda slip that in there which is a massive assumption.
And exactly which democracy is best aside from the one proposed?
For that matter exactly WHO? and I do mean WHO says that democracies aren't working? Who the fuck has the balls to say that horseshit premise?
No one is saying that. Not seriously, anywhere. No one.
That ultimately is the fatal flaw for this thought experiment.
There are fundamentally different value judgments from "European" "Democracies" vs US vs Asian as examples.
Lottery based is an interesting system but not really doable the way this site lays out.
3 years is too short to do anything; unless there is a relief value where a certain percentage (by lottery) of that year's cohort can do something critical in any representative form of govt. Incumbency.
You do in fact need a slowly revolving core of representatives who can do proper work over 2-5 terms max. Otherwise its a constant nut house with nothing getting done and not near enough permanence for medium to long term solutions over time.
At the end of the day for me -- I do not think the people behind this thought this through and it shows. There isnt serious skull sweat in this thing and I think it undermines an interesting concept. I also think just because you are frustrated in democratic processes -- you are the problem.
Apathy is a choice. Ignorance is a choice. Frustration is a choice.
If you do not like your form of govt -- move, make peace with it or roll up them sleeves and get busy participating.
There is a very hilarious genre of political "thinkers" whose entire view of politics is entirely delusional and who are so disconnected from reality that both their diagnosis and their solution looks ridiculous.
I get that Yarvin is an icky fascist bigot, but just read the political thinkers he got his ideas from. The idea that the elected representatives, much less the method by which representatives are chosen, have any meaningful impact on politics is just laughable.
The issue with randomly selected representation is that the support staff start to become the ones who effectively make the decisions.
This is the same issue with term limits (which to be clear, I'm in favor of, but we have to go in with our eyes open), which is that e.g. the congressional staffers gain power, especially if they persist across the end of the term limit.
In these kinds of cases, you almost need term limits for staff, which feels pretty cruel and arbitrary - "Thank you for making a career in public service but you are now legally barred from your chosen career"
> This is the same issue with term limits (which to be clear, I'm in favor of, but we have to go in with our eyes open), which is that e.g. the congressional staffers gain power, especially if they persist across the end of the term limit.
Term limits are a bad hack trying to fix the problem that the status quo electoral system presents (1) too few meaningful choices, and (2) largely as a consequence of #1 and relatively stable local ideological mixes, features very strong incumbency preferences.
Fix the electoral system to resolve that (lots of ways to do that), and the broken idea of term limits stops being an attractive way to pretend that you are doing something without actually fixing the problems.
>the support staff start to become the ones who effectively make the decisions.
Yes, that's a variation of : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state
Term limits seem fine, just make them a reasonable length. Say, three of their full six year terms for a Senator seems fine for example. Or maybe allow states to elect one senator to a fourth term (logically this will always be their senior senator) but never both and no fifth terms. [I'm assuming we'll allow, as for Presidents, an incomplete first term, for senators that might be by election to replace another out of sequence]
A freshman senator might be intimidated by an aide who knows DC like the back of their hand after forty years in the office back room, but when they're back for their second, let alone third term, that old hack doesn't know the first thing about the actual job, that aide isn't in those meetings hashing out a 2am compromise with the White House, and they're not in a town hall back home trying to explain to some fellow who has never left Kentucky why we need to spend so much money on a Navy they've never seen.
Another alternative, which existing American politicians will hate but too bad, is age limits. For example the UK's Supreme Court all have to retire by age 75. I can't imagine a lot of the oldest senators are effective legislators, they'd rather be in bed than get stuff done. So, age them out.
And if you try to place limits on staffers, then you’ll find even more legislation being drafted by lobbyists.
Well, to be fair, I would also be in favor of banning lobbying entirely, which I recognize is also problematic - then you have laws being written based on sub rosa back room deals, since lobbying is to a certain degree "human relationships in the context of power dynamics" aka politics.
Banning lobbying would be effectively a ban on all political speech. Because that's what lobbying is: political speech. For example, yesterday I sent a bunch of letters to my elected politicians talking about the Rio Grande Plan[0]. That makes me a Rio Grande Plan lobbyist. Louis Rossmann spent several years traveling across-country to speak about right-to-repair[1] laws. That makes him a right-to-repair lobbyist.
What we actually are angry about is the presence of money in politics. American political campaigns burn money like nothing else, which is akin to being in a government meeting where everyone is shouting over one another, like to the point where people are bringing in loudspeakers and megaphones. If that example were a real situation, it would be entirely legal to go and have police officers take away the megaphones, and tell people to quiet down and take their turn.
But because money is involved, SCOTUS says that, no, shouting over everyone else with a big pile of cash is TOTALLY protected speech. Any money at all that is to effect political speech is inherently protected. And so we have campaign seasons that burn billions of dollars, and people who are basically not listened to, because all the anti-bribery law that was supposed to stop the election fundraising arms race got thrown out over a decade ago.
[0] A citizen-led plan to reactivate Salt Lake City's historic train station and reroute our regional rail service over to it.
[1] Laws that would make it easier to purchase repair parts for broken electronics and prohibit the use of digital locks to prevent the repair of said electronics.
Outlaw lobbying/lobbyists. What's next?
I have questions here, a lot of lobbying is done by:
a) trade organizations (we're all the onion farmers in Nebraska and want to make sure the Nebraska legislature doesn't pass laws that negatively impact us and promote laws that help us)
and
b) activist organizations (we're a coalition of organizations that protect water usage in the Mississippi delta and want to pass laws that promote conservation in those states)
Those groups often choose to retain professional lobbyists but will also send groups of interested parties to lobby who are not professional lobbyists.
Do you also ban trade organizations and activist organizations in this case? Do you carve out exceptions for them and just ban the "freelance" lobbyists? Most lobbying is meeting with legislators and talking with them about issues, educating them. How do you ban that without making legislators effectively useless (or if you're cynical, even more useless)?
This seems like an easy proposal, but I don't see many case studies of it being successfully implemented.
I can't really think of any "wholesale all lobbying forbidden", but at least for specific industries there are a couple. "WHO FCTC Article 5.3" which is about limiting the influence of tobacco companies is probably the first that comes to mind, and the most famous example. Singapore I think recently done some legislative changes around lobbying as well, but I'd confess to not knowing much about it, maybe someone here could fill out the blanks if they have the knowledge already.
Not possible in a country with freedom of speech protections
Maybe not possible in the specific country you're thinking about, with their specific implementation of "freedom of speech", but it's hardly the only one, and not all of them are incompatible with outlawing lobbying (if the US one even is, I dunno).
Simple. Don't protect it just like sharing nuclear secrets or CSAM isn't protected.
If you try to ban lobbying you will incidentally criminalize basically all political speech. White papers are a form of lobbying, providing testimony is a form of lobbying, running an ad campaign is lobbying, speaking with your congressional representative is lobbying.
It'd simply have to be carefully drafted policy rather than an internet comment.
So simple it's indescribable
This notion always puzzles me. It's not a complex idea.
Just like, say, banning GMO bananas. But such regulation is a whole text which may need to define or refer to definitions of "GMO" and "banana", specify what's banned, exemptions, enforcement authority, penalties, and so on. Maybe 10 pages of legalese. It requires time, expertise, research. But it's still just a ban on GMO bananas.
Or a programmed UI button to show a message. Simple. The specifics of the execution are a separate matter.
It's not "indescribable", but no one will describe it to you ad hoc and expecting it is silly.
What's "it"? Speaking in public?
Making strawmen. Your position of "policy is impossible to write" is inane.
Running a government and banning the representatives of your economy from talking to you is insanely stupid.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with lobbying, it is an essential part of the government and can not be legislated away, without crippling the entire country.
Great. Now we have inexperienced legislators, inexperienced aides, and experienced lobbyists. That's definitely going to be an improvement rather than an absolute catastrophe.
Term limits are like so many populist ideas: they sound great until you think at all about the consequences.
Effective government requires people with a long tenure. That's how you learn how the system operates, that's how you build the relationships that allow you to get things done, and that's how you build the reputation that allows you to get people to believe in what you say and accomplish things.
In my own defense, the kinds of term limits I'm talking about are much lengthier than most people start out wanting, I think. I would term limit senators at 5 terms, perhaps, and representatives at 12 or 15? I think the issue is not so much long tenures per se as losing relevance by spending an entire lifetime in one position in government.
Isn't that just reinventing aristocracy?
No. Elected officials have to be elected, which is a control and feedback mechanism.
Yeah, I feel like our form of representative democracy is the least bad option. At the very least, office-holders aren't entitled to their office beyond their term unless they're re-elected.
The fundamental problem is that governing is boring, complicated, and unfulfilling to most people. The most impactful elections to citizens' day-to-day lives (i.e., local offices, state legislatures, and primaries for those) have absolutely abysmal participation rates, even in states that bend over backwards with voter accessibility.
I'll take inexperienced legislators with fresh ideas who understand how the world actually works over 80 year old careerists whose only skill is fundraising and who still see the world through the lens of Cold War great man politics. Long tenure is how you get entrenched power dynamics, dynasties and eventually dictatorships, and government locked in eternal stasis and unable to adapt to modernity.
I'm really starting to think Thomas Jefferson was right and every 20 years we should just burn Washington to the ground, rip up the Constitution, hang every politician and start over, and make the new blood walk through the corpses on their way to work just to keep the fear of God fresh in their hearts.
FFS, Hillary Clinton had the long tenure. She had experience - implicitly as first lady, and explicitly as governor and secretary of state. She campaigned on policy. She lost to a buffoon conman sex pest with no political experience whose reputation hitherto was playing himself on tv.
Am I saying Hillary Clinton was a better person than Donald Trump? No. I'm not even saying she would have been a particularly good President. But I'm just pointing out how little "reputation" actually matters to American voters, because she was obviously vastly more qualified for the job, and if that mattered it wouldn't have been a contest at all. But the one thing Americans hate more than an experienced politician is an experienced legacy politician. FFS the most popular American President in recent history was an actor who had Alzheimers in office, and got advice from his wife's astrologer.
What he have is already an absolute catastrophe, an utter circus. The competent, well-meaning civic minded politicians you're referring to don't exist, nor does the educated, discerning voter base necessary to put them into office. People voted for Donald Trump the second time because they thought he could control the price of eggs. Like there was a fucking knob somewhere and Joe Biden just didn't want to turn it.
The least we can do is try to minimize the damage any specific idiot (in the voting booth or in office) might cause.
The main problem with choosing representatives by lottery is that the average person just doesn't want to do the job. I know I wouldn't. It's about as appealing as having to do jury duty for three years.
The book proposes financial incentives as a way to address this reluctance, such as paying the person 1.5 times their current salary. But that seems like it will lead to representatives who are only doing it for the money, not because they care about doing a good job.
And then, of course, there's always a chance that you end up in a "Napoleon of Notting Hill" situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Napoleon_of_Notting_Hill
Part of me wonders what would happen if a lottery were used not to select representatives from among the population at large, but from among the candidates who have won their parties' respective primaries. Of course, then you'd have to decide whether to use weighted selections (which would strongly favor the entrenched parties) or non-weighted (which would give a strong edge to minor parties).
But realistically, sensible term limits seem like they would help achieve a lot of what the proposed lottocracy system would achieve.
This is the premise of The Napoleon of Notting Hill by G. K. Chesterton. In 1984 (100 years after the writing of the book), the King of England is now selected by lottery. Much wildness ensues.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/20058/20058-h/20058-h.htm
I imagine the random person, if they were to accept, would likely find themselves out of depth and simply outsource most of the job to whoever convinces them they're the right choice.
The system would then morph into a variant of representative democracy. Instead of millions voting for, say, around a thousand of various level representatives, you get a random thousand "voting" for "consultants".
These consultants would be directly hired by the random thousand to do the work for them. They would predicably have marketing campaigns to make themselves seem the right pick. They might even offer their services for free. Demagoguery and corporate sponsorship as usual.
In the end 1000 people would hire, say, 1-1000 consultants to represent them. Thus emulating the original process, or worse. The only difference is the tiny electorate, which increases volatility.
If you'd like to regulate it to prevent this, you'd have to expend an effort and fight similar pressures as with doing it in any other system.
I don’t think it solves the core limitation of democracy - limits you to lowest common denominator of what the man on the street thinks. Who is by definition of average intelligence.
It’s all sorts of rubbish and not conducive to solving problems decisively but seems to be the only system where power doesn’t get monopolized
Not exactly a new idea...but I do think it's one that is underused in democratic societies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
Having said that, it doesn't seem obvious to me that elected power is actually all that powerful, compared to unelected powers like corporations. I think you could use the same reasoning as pro-sortition arguments, but to argue for more democracy and elections, not less. Or at least that a state/citizen-focused theory of power is inadequate. (Raymond Geuss talks more about this.)
There is a lot of potential in this. Not just for government democracy, but for also introducing democratic elements into tech/AI policy, when that tech has impact comparable to many governments.
I worked in tech, and after some formative experiences, shifted to working on helping ensuring ensure that tech's impact on society can serve the public interest. But that leaves the question of what "what is the public interest"?
Sortitition / lottocracy / deliberative democracy / mini-publics all roughly refer to the same way to answer that question — providing a representative microcosm with the space to deeply examine an issue, and come to a set of recommendations and decisions on it. Unlike with electoral democracy, it's faster to spin up and experiment with, and it's harder for bad actors to entrench power (elections can be useful, but they're one of many tools in the democratic toolbelt).
That thinking lead to https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/towards-platform-de... . That basic approach, has been somewhat picked up by Meta (https://www.wired.com/story/meta-ran-a-giant-experiment-in-g...) and Open AI (https://aligned.substack.com/p/a-proposal-for-importing-soci..., ~ leading to their democratic inputs and collective alignment work).
I've now started an organization focusing on applying this and other democratic paradigms to decision-making about AI (https://aidemocracyfoundation.org/) as a way to solve a variety of challenging governance problems across the AI stack. If you're curious about it, our ICML paper goes into more detail: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.09222 .
We still need elections: There are policy decisions that really need to follow popular support; and there are situations where the general public needs to be able to overrule the legislature. (For example, marijuana legalization in Massachusetts was by a ballot initiative.)
That being said:
1: I think some aspect of randomly choosing legislative bodies helps avoid leaders who are power-seeking.
2: I think "Breaking the Two Party Doom Loop" speaks a lot more about how to fix the issues with elections. https://leedrutman.org/breaking-the-two-party-doom-loop
I doubt this would work better. the average person simply isn't a good executive. they'd end up getting dominated by the assertive folks. a simpler and easier solution to our problems to enforce approval voting across all elections, local, state and national, which will easily allow for moderates to siphon all votes and moderate the country drastically.
I think this idea (which is properly called sortition) would work even better if combined with the normal kind of democracy.
Most western democracies already have a two-chamber system (commons/lords, congress/senate etc), but those two chambers are elected in very similar ways. Instead, we could make one of them elected by sortition, while keeping the other one a traditional democracy.
I'd personally split the sortition part into per-area committees. There'd be a main committee with members taken from the general populace, whose only job would be to create the rules of who can be chosen for which committee (e.g. only qualified doctors for medicine). That main committee would also manage inter-committee disputes, in cases where it's not obvious whether a particular committee should be given the right to vote on a particular bill.
As low an opinion as I have of current politicians, I feel sortition would work even less well.
Works exactly once until people who are lottery-elected change the system to stay in power forever.
This is the kind of naive nonsense that children come up with. Anyone who has done jury service knows how thick and incompetent a random sampling of the population is.
If you want effective rulers, you need Roman democracy. Each position is held only for a year, and you either win election to the next rank, or you’re out.
Corbyns and Bernies can’t just sit in the same seat for 50 years without ever doing anything. Morons can’t get to be ruler. Every step is an intense competition, encouraging boldness in public service.
They also had an amazing system for war declarations… only those eligible to fight were eligible to vote whether to declare war. The old and the weak were not allowed to vote in those specific ballots.
The "let's pick people at random to discuss hairy topics" has been done at least three times in France in the form of "Convention Citoyenne".
In each case, people came up with relatively "popular" solutions (one of them is still in progress)
In each case, the elected officials all but ignored the output, on the ground that the body had not been elected, was manipulated by experts, had no responsibility and accountability, etc...
Anyone who solves this will indeed have found an improvement over elective democracy.
In the case of the US, a lower hanging fruit would be getting out of "elections that can easily be bought by corporations with litteral money".
I think a much more "American" style of political competition would be to have elected politicians compete at various levels to determine who gets to move on to the next higher position. They already seem to do this informally in many cases by progressing through a career as a politician so why not formalize it? That way instead of your advancement being determined by your party officials or your fundraising it could be based on how well you governed at each level of office with the winner determined by measurable improvements they made.
It would be better to hold referendums instead. An important decision should be brought directly to the populace rather than be driven by the whims of the currently elected party in power (regardless of political stripes). Examples of important questions are: Should we allow X people to immigrate per year? Should we go to war with country Y?Should the new tax rate be Z?
The Swiss do this. They are one of the populations most satisfied with their government. Referendums work.
I'm afraid that mr Buckley would be shocked if he actually met and had a conversation with the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone book.
Mr. Buckley may or may not be shocked, but he's certainly a vocal opponent of a competent effective government, so all of his thoughts on how he'd prefer to be governed should be ignored with extreme prejudice.
Generally, inverting them would be superior to ignoring them, but the last thing you should do is take them as good ideas.
According to YOU. What a very poor all or nothing statement. And the reader should never listen to someone who claims all or nothing here or there. Nope. Perhaps throw a bridle on your unbridled "kindly fuck off nuance" view.
Would you rather be treated (medically) by the first 2000 people? Do you think code will be written better by the first 2000? I get being unhappy about current political class, but this kind of claims is wild to me.
I have confidence in the US electoral system to select representatives of more than usual charisma, but not competence or integrity.
In my opinion even charisma implies higher than average intellect which is already something.
We should put more pressure on elected politicians around competence and integrity, sure, but it doesn’t mean random person is going to be better.
In the original comparison second category of people have much higher intellect than average.
> In the original comparison second category of people have much higher intellect than average.
I think that intellect may sometimes be weakly and unreliably associated with some kinds of competence, but not with integrity, which is as important. I think power seekers are self-selecting to be more self-serving.
Issue with your original statement is that it implies negative correlation between intellect and being good politician. All the issues you describe (both being self serving and power seeking) apply to anyone regardless to their intellect (and I still think they apply less to people of high intellect just because they see bigger picture, but I might be wrong).
We need to optimize for less self serving and more integrity but we should strive for smarter people up there too.
That's called 'Government by Aardman'
The average person can barely read and knows nothing about world history and politics. No thanks.
It's really, ah, silly to claim this is a new idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition dates back to ancient Athens.
> Perhaps we can use this wild ancient idea to build a new, better democracy for the 21st century and beyond…
The linked page makes it very clear that this is an old idea.
I did miss that one time, but they spend a lot more words calling it "new". And I read their table of contents which also didn't spend any significant time on history.
The linked PDF, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/66d70657deaace3ac1fc4..., makes it very clear this is an old idea on page 3.
"Perhaps we can use this wild ancient idea to build a new, better democracy for the 21st century and beyond…"
I think they're acknowledging as much.
Sortition.
The word I think they are looking for is sortition.
So called democracy is already "hacked". What you do is create a two party system in most countries, which provides the illusion of choice.
What "most countries" have a two-party system? From the summary below, most democracies actually seem to not have one. Spain, for example, used to be rather binary in early 2k, but its parliament has diversified since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system
Maybe Americans should question why new parties cannot be formed that actually represent their people instead of looking to replace democracy entirely with...a lottery? I can't comment further because I am not American.
New Zealand isn’t on that list, but two parties generally take 70-80% of the vote. Last election (~65%) was an outlier due to the two leaders being pretty unpopular.
However, NZ has a proportional voting system that leads to coalitions forming governments. This is considered a good thing, but can lead to…interesting outcomes. The current government is very much the dog being wagged by a couple of nasty tails. Current PM is a weak “I've run a company so can run a country” type.
> Current PM is a weak “I've run a company so can run a country” type.
Hopefully a successful company, that is.
He was successful at Air NZ from memory. But they're completely different jobs. For example, he cut services and jobs which helped increase profits. Not uncommon for an airline. The same approach when running a country is disastrous and not uncommon for out of touch neoliberals like Luxon.
His management experience at Air NZ has not correlated with strong leadership. Compare him with the previous PM (Jacinda Ardern) and most Kiwis, even the right, would agree she handled things better. A few lefties like myself think she could have done more (especially wrt to housing policy) with the immense political capital she had just before Covid, but oh well.
You didn't ask for any of that sorry!
It was interesting to read, thanks. I know very little about NZ.
Frankly it couldn't work any worse than our current system.
the problem with most politicians is that they're the sort of people who want to be politicians
Oh it could be much, much worse. I can only imagine the harebrained ideas that would be popular. No more taxes of any kind. Free beer and cigarettes. Monthly checks of, I don't know, $10k a person.
At some point you need adults in the room(in mind, not age). Our system is obviously not great, but this is a way to make it much worse.
Yeah, basically it becomes a very serious "jury duty".
Our current system works very well. It provides predictability and protects the rights of people. That's also why it's heavily biased against rapid changes. It's not _perfect_ for sure.
But the sortition-based systems are in general quite terrible exactly because they lack the feedback loops that keep societies stable. The main problem with the current administration, for example, is its disdain for these checks and balances and desire to move fast and break all the written and unwritten traditions.
There are also examples of failed sortition-based systems. I can give you the Soviet Union as one example. On paper, it was ruled by the Supreme Council ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Soviet_of_the_Soviet_U... ). Its delegates were chosen mostly randomly from workers and then approved by a public vote. Yet it was a complete rubber-stamp organization with zero actual power.
Sortition made sure of that, people couldn't form reliable alliances and power-hungry people who could initiate real reforms almost never actually got chosen.
In the UK we had this for about 5 years under the previous regime.
I’m skeptical. From what I’ve lived through, it seems like power always finds a way to consolidate in perpetuity.
The best we can hope for is that those with the most power have our interests at heart.
> What if elections are the problem?
Social media is the problem. We weren't this polarized until after the Bush admin, right as everyone on the planet got online.
Politics used to be civil. Republicans and Democrats in Congress used to go out to lunch together. Hyper online discourse and algorithms that boost rage ended that.
We're all being taught to foam at the mouth to increase screen time.
There have been brief periods where civility was normal, but politics and extreme heated emotion and polarization are the norm. Murder, mayhem, riots, extreme, ridiculous mud-slinging, and simmering turmoil have been the default state for a majority of human history.
Social media has exacerbated things in some ways, but in others, it's imposed an artificial civility as people get settled into their bubbles and vent online instead of taking action.
Just look at all the political violence in each decade of the 20th century in the US. Look at all the bombings, arson, murder, riots since 1950.
The dynamics have changed, but it'll be decades or more before humanity is anywhere near culturally settled down with the internet and instant global communication. It's already a net good, but massive online platforms and entrenched power players manipulating narratives and so on still need to be calibrated in policy.
The civility you remember might simply have been that all the violence wasn't being reported and headlining in major outlets 24/7. The threshold for newsworthy events and the willing participation of news outlets in managing perception created a very sterile and civil seeming facade over what's been more or less constant chaos.
> it's imposed an artificial civility as people get settled into their bubbles and vent online instead of taking action.
Civility serves those taking an ever-growing fraction of the country's wealth generation.
The George W. Bush era (not administration) was very polarized.
When I read his memoir, he didn't come across as polarized, but more naive about polarization in the media. He did mention that he regretted not having a better media presence.
The post-war partisan environment was pretty unique in American history for its civility and substantial overlap between the two parties. The late 19th century had a level of partisanship comparable to today, though much of it was filtered through ethnic and religious identities in a way that would be unfamiliar to people today. In many ways, our modern political environment is a reversion to the mean. I wouldn’t bet money on social media specifically being the primary driver of this change (though I do think the collapse in barriers to sharing information has allowed for partisanship identity to be formed along ideological lines, rather than geographical or cultural lines, in a way that is unique.)
They still go to lunch together. They do so at climate conferences, Davos, and all the other places us peasants are not invited to.
Because many of us forget that getting elected and staying elected requires putting on an act for the minority of Americans who vote in primaries.
Which Bush?
Rush Limbaugh was amping up the polarization in the late 1980's.
Yes, access to information must be the problem! Neglect the real danger of social media, the corporations behind them.
I understand the sentiment, but "Republicans and Democrats" doesn't sound appealing, it makes my blood boil, and certainly you are thinking "this idiot's been brainwashed by social media to think that's a good thing!", maybe, fair. But I think maybe democrats shouldn'tve been doing that during 2012 and playing "they go low, we go high" when they were holding a justice position from a centrist candidate a "sensible" congress wouldve passed, I don't think they should've done that when Bush cried about WMDs, and most recently I don't think they should continue to just "have lunch" after January 6th. I'm goddamn tired of complicit democrats.
Why not Plebiscites, updated for the technological age, could function as a mass interface: swipe-based decisions on budgets and policy, where governance emerges from an aggregated collective consciousness rather than elite mediation… thoughts?
The diagnosis I largely agree with. To the point I no longer identify as a (small-d) democrat, it is the tyrrany of the mob's choice of (usually reprehensible) representative, who will have lied and pacted with corrupt elites to obtain his/her position, and been nominally elected by the ignorant. Anyone who wants power should by that fact be excluded. The solution however (lottery-election) is absurd. We should instead restrict the franchise by exam to provably non-ignorant, non-evil critical thinkers so that we get representatives who are non-sociopaths that we can respect.
> We should instead restrict the franchise by exam to provably non-ignorant, non-evil critical thinkers so that we get representatives who are non-sociopaths that we can respect.
How do we prove non-evil?
Also the exam part brings to mind the Chinese imperial exams for civil service.
I don't know whether that's good or bad, it didn't work out well for them.
For a critical thinking exam, you should be able to show that you can decipher political gobledegook, identify lies and platitiudes, strawman arguments etc(there would be much less of it anyway as in a restricted franchise very few with votes would be swayed by it, which is the point.)
Non-evilness would be shown by answering questions designed to test basic empathy, and also by the lack of recent recorded crimes or misdemenours.
Two things I find very strange about the criticisms of sortition, as opposed to elections:
1) There are very few prerequisites for electoral candidates, mostly just age minimums (with no maximums). In some but not all cases there's a residency requirement, and in the case of the POTUS, a birthright citizenship requirement. Otherwise, there is no specific requirement for intelligence, knowledge, experience, ethics, etc. Basically, any random citizen who's old enough can run, and win, as long as they can somehow convince enough other people to vote for them. And there are some incredible dumbasses who get elected; I'll mention my own Senator Ron Johnson as particularly noteworthy in that department, but the list is quite long IMO.
2) The random voters who are so distrusted by critics of sortition are the very same people who are entrusted with voting for the candidates in elections that are supposedly superior to sortition. How exactly is that supposed to work, where that outcome, election outcomes, are magically better than the outcomes of voters deliberating among themselves?
What I like about sortition is that I think the odds are a lot better to select honest, good-intentioned, non-corrupt people by lot than by election. The latter tends to pick out the power-hungry, and in a political system where campaigns are privately financed, elections also tend to pick out the financially corrupt.
The situation would be a lot different if for example we had stringent standardized tests as prerequisites for political office, but we don't. Ironically, you have to pass the bar to be a lawyer, but you don't have to pass the bar to be a lawmaker.
Couple questions .... what is the author's point of origin and experience with "democracy" and/or "democracies"? I mention this as the founding principals of this Lottery thing are more or less "complaints" and not values or principals really. It is very slasdash and hollow.
But this is a fun thought experiment so lets .... move on.
Why *exactly* is democracy the absolute best form of govt known to mankind? You just kinda slip that in there which is a massive assumption. And exactly which democracy is best aside from the one proposed?
For that matter exactly WHO? and I do mean WHO says that democracies aren't working? Who the fuck has the balls to say that horseshit premise?
No one is saying that. Not seriously, anywhere. No one. That ultimately is the fatal flaw for this thought experiment.
There are fundamentally different value judgments from "European" "Democracies" vs US vs Asian as examples.
Lottery based is an interesting system but not really doable the way this site lays out.
3 years is too short to do anything; unless there is a relief value where a certain percentage (by lottery) of that year's cohort can do something critical in any representative form of govt. Incumbency.
You do in fact need a slowly revolving core of representatives who can do proper work over 2-5 terms max. Otherwise its a constant nut house with nothing getting done and not near enough permanence for medium to long term solutions over time.
At the end of the day for me -- I do not think the people behind this thought this through and it shows. There isnt serious skull sweat in this thing and I think it undermines an interesting concept. I also think just because you are frustrated in democratic processes -- you are the problem.
Apathy is a choice. Ignorance is a choice. Frustration is a choice.
If you do not like your form of govt -- move, make peace with it or roll up them sleeves and get busy participating.
There is a very hilarious genre of political "thinkers" whose entire view of politics is entirely delusional and who are so disconnected from reality that both their diagnosis and their solution looks ridiculous.
I get that Yarvin is an icky fascist bigot, but just read the political thinkers he got his ideas from. The idea that the elected representatives, much less the method by which representatives are chosen, have any meaningful impact on politics is just laughable.