3 ms·

I'd replace the SAT score with some small, fixed amount of people vouching for you so that you could enter the lottery. (After all, there might be someone capab

by maus42 11y ago

I'd replace the SAT score with some small, fixed amount of people vouching for you so that you could enter the lottery. (After all, there might be someone capable who because of some good reasons didn't manage to take SAT, and the system should be just and fair for them, too.) The amount should not be so large that you'd need the gigantic ad campaigns you need today to be elected, but large enough that you need support outside your immediate family. Maybe ~20. Gathering their 'votes' demonstrates that you're at least interested in the job, and the element of trust is still there (someone trusts you would do a good job, and not doing that would be a betrayal).

Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
I think standardized tests are vastly underrated. One of the nice properties of sortition is it combines well with many other forms of selection. However, this seems to ruin the point: >Gathering their 'votes' demonstrates that you're at least interested in the job, and the element of trust is still there (someone trusts you would do a good job, and not doing that would be a betrayal). A big plus of sortition is it does not maximally select for the people most interested in political power. Having to be elected or self-selected in such a fashion would mar this.
- randcraw 11y ago
  I agree, tests have their uses. Like any kind of constraint, they can be used to diminish the search space to increase the desired yield. When devised and administered fairly, they can go a long way toward leveling a playing field (or excluding the crazies). For example, if we want to exclude congress(wo)men who are powermad egomaniacs, we start by asking knowledgable sources to rank candidates by lust, greed, and vanity, then exclude from random selection all those who fall below a certain threshold. Voila, no more psychos (golddiggers) joining the the Washington Elite. The lovely part of Sortition is that with a large number of fair & knowledgable 'rankers' (or 'standardized tests') it's basically impossible to game the system. So I vote 'yea' for Sortition.

by maus42 11y ago

Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago

I think standardized tests are vastly underrated. One of the nice properties of sortition is it combines well with many other forms of selection. However, this seems to ruin the point: >Gathering their 'votes' demonstrates that you're at least interested in the job, and the element of trust is still there (someone trusts you would do a good job, and not doing that would be a betrayal). A big plus of sortition is it does not maximally select for the people most interested in political power. Having to be elected or self-selected in such a fashion would mar this.

randcraw 11y ago
I agree, tests have their uses. Like any kind of constraint, they can be used to diminish the search space to increase the desired yield. When devised and administered fairly, they can go a long way toward leveling a playing field (or excluding the crazies). For example, if we want to exclude congress(wo)men who are powermad egomaniacs, we start by asking knowledgable sources to rank candidates by lust, greed, and vanity, then exclude from random selection all those who fall below a certain threshold. Voila, no more psychos (golddiggers) joining the the Washington Elite. The lovely part of Sortition is that with a large number of fair & knowledgable 'rankers' (or 'standardized tests') it's basically impossible to game the system. So I vote 'yea' for Sortition.