5 ms·

Don't knock that approach - it's known as Sortition ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition ) and I'm personally c

Don't knock that approach - it's known as Sortition ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition ) and I'm personally convinced that it's a much better way of achieving democracy than any other.

ionised 11y ago
Yep. I've mentioned this a few times. It seems like a sensible approach to me. Much like having members of a jury selected, it should be considered a civic duty and not a career path.
irixusr 11y ago
I've argued for it for a few years but most people are aghast at the suggestion...
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  And yet we decide who is guilty of major crimes by this method.
  - irixusr 11y ago
    You're lucky if your case gets that far. Usually an often elected professional will twist your arm to plead guilty.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  I have seen the same thing. I now firmly believe that most people understand that voting for representatives is a sham, but go along with it either for unstated reasons like tribalism and hero worship, or out of a deep seated misanthropy common to both the left and right wing.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Who is "most people"? Almost 2/3 of voters in midterm congressional elections are over 45--are you really considering a representative pool of people in forming your belief? The majority of voters have the representatives they want (approval rates for peoples' own Congresspeople are extremely high). If you keep in mind the demographics that bother to vote (my 65 year old mom, but not my 30 year old wife and I), they have the government they want too. My mom is super excited about Hilary and would vote for life imprisonment for drug dealing if anyone put it on a referendum.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - harryh 11y ago
    This sort of nihilism is childish. You may not get everything you want from your government but jumping from that to "it's a sham" is absurd. If McCain had won in 2008 would the US have passed national health care reform?
    - irixusr 11y ago
      We're not nihilists. We see a political process that is broken and throws some peanuts our way to keep the paroles happy. But if you're a potential donor like Lockheed Martin you bill the gov't for a flightless bird The ACA is less than peanuts, since you have to buy the insurance yourself!
huherto 11y ago
I would like an approach where we randomly select "electors". They are sequestered, listen to the arguments of the candidates, hold several election rounds and finally come out with he elected officials. Like a jury. They would be dismissed after that.
randcraw 11y ago
Thanks; glad to know the name for this practice. It'd be a huge improvement over the popularity contest we have now. In fact, it's probably the ideal way to promote anyone in any setting. I'd make a few small adjustments, however. Rather than random selection, I'd like the pool of candidates to be reviewed by their peers and scored for ability, creativity, fairness, leadership -- whatever skills are appropriate in their realm. Then I'd like to see some sort of weighting applied to the random choice that favors the "best and the brightest" over the bottom dwellers. And it goes without saying... no campaigning or re-election.
- morley 11y ago
  It's easy to fall in love with a political system that's never been tested at the United State's scale. My guess is, if we implemented sortition, a few unsavory things would happen: (1) The Republican and Democrat parties would just switch their efforts to getting people excluded from the random drawing, much as they currently aim to include or exclude people from voting. (2) After selections, the losing party would attack the random selection process. (3) Assuming the selection is allowed to go through without objection, the random person would be under the same duress that elected candidates have to accept bribes and kickbacks. (4) It's possible that the average citizen would be more prone to reap their rewards during their short term in office, rather than someone who's mindful of their full career. I'm guessing you're just being flippant out of cynicism against the current system, but I'm a little over that line of thinking.
  - rdancer 11y ago
    Two-party systems are the inevitable product of a First-Past-The-Post voting in a democracy[1]. There would be no Democratic and Republican party under a sortition system. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
    - Retra 11y ago
      Are you trying to say that people's political affiliations are a consequence of how their votes are counted?
tsunamifury 11y ago
A better thing to do is to randomize 2-3% of votes, which takes away the leverage swing voters have, pushing politicians to make bad deals for the final votes they need to edge out their opponent. This way when a candidate has to sew together segments to get a majority, he worries about larger minority groups and leverage of a tiny-minority doesn't overpower the rest. e.g. the NRA

ionised 11y ago

Yep. I've mentioned this a few times. It seems like a sensible approach to me. Much like having members of a jury selected, it should be considered a civic duty and not a career path.

irixusr 11y ago

I've argued for it for a few years but most people are aghast at the suggestion...

JupiterMoon 11y ago
And yet we decide who is guilty of major crimes by this method.
- irixusr 11y ago
  You're lucky if your case gets that far. Usually an often elected professional will twist your arm to plead guilty.
duncan_bayne 11y ago
I have seen the same thing. I now firmly believe that most people understand that voting for representatives is a sham, but go along with it either for unstated reasons like tribalism and hero worship, or out of a deep seated misanthropy common to both the left and right wing.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Who is "most people"? Almost 2/3 of voters in midterm congressional elections are over 45--are you really considering a representative pool of people in forming your belief? The majority of voters have the representatives they want (approval rates for peoples' own Congresspeople are extremely high). If you keep in mind the demographics that bother to vote (my 65 year old mom, but not my 30 year old wife and I), they have the government they want too. My mom is super excited about Hilary and would vote for life imprisonment for drug dealing if anyone put it on a referendum.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- harryh 11y ago
  This sort of nihilism is childish. You may not get everything you want from your government but jumping from that to "it's a sham" is absurd. If McCain had won in 2008 would the US have passed national health care reform?
  - irixusr 11y ago
    We're not nihilists. We see a political process that is broken and throws some peanuts our way to keep the paroles happy. But if you're a potential donor like Lockheed Martin you bill the gov't for a flightless bird The ACA is less than peanuts, since you have to buy the insurance yourself!

huherto 11y ago

I would like an approach where we randomly select "electors". They are sequestered, listen to the arguments of the candidates, hold several election rounds and finally come out with he elected officials. Like a jury. They would be dismissed after that.

randcraw 11y ago

Thanks; glad to know the name for this practice. It'd be a huge improvement over the popularity contest we have now. In fact, it's probably the ideal way to promote anyone in any setting. I'd make a few small adjustments, however. Rather than random selection, I'd like the pool of candidates to be reviewed by their peers and scored for ability, creativity, fairness, leadership -- whatever skills are appropriate in their realm. Then I'd like to see some sort of weighting applied to the random choice that favors the "best and the brightest" over the bottom dwellers. And it goes without saying... no campaigning or re-election.

morley 11y ago
It's easy to fall in love with a political system that's never been tested at the United State's scale. My guess is, if we implemented sortition, a few unsavory things would happen: (1) The Republican and Democrat parties would just switch their efforts to getting people excluded from the random drawing, much as they currently aim to include or exclude people from voting. (2) After selections, the losing party would attack the random selection process. (3) Assuming the selection is allowed to go through without objection, the random person would be under the same duress that elected candidates have to accept bribes and kickbacks. (4) It's possible that the average citizen would be more prone to reap their rewards during their short term in office, rather than someone who's mindful of their full career. I'm guessing you're just being flippant out of cynicism against the current system, but I'm a little over that line of thinking.
- rdancer 11y ago
  Two-party systems are the inevitable product of a First-Past-The-Post voting in a democracy[1]. There would be no Democratic and Republican party under a sortition system. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
  - Retra 11y ago
    Are you trying to say that people's political affiliations are a consequence of how their votes are counted?

tsunamifury 11y ago

A better thing to do is to randomize 2-3% of votes, which takes away the leverage swing voters have, pushing politicians to make bad deals for the final votes they need to edge out their opponent. This way when a candidate has to sew together segments to get a majority, he worries about larger minority groups and leverage of a tiny-minority doesn't overpower the rest. e.g. the NRA