4 ms·

This sounds like a variation of Plato's Philosopher Kings, which uses the 'random sampling' argument to get around the obvious criticism of the elites being giv

This sounds like a variation of Plato's Philosopher Kings, which uses the 'random sampling' argument to get around the obvious criticism of the elites being given the power. > The Ship of State is a famous and oft-cited metaphor put forth by Plato in Book VI of the Republic (488e–489d). It likens the governance of a city-state to the command of a naval vessel and ultimately argues that the only men fit to be captain of this ship (Greek: ναῦς) are philosopher kings, benevolent men with absolute power who have access to the Form of the Good. The origins of the metaphor can be traced back to the lyric poet Alcaeus (frs. 6, 208, 249), and it is found in Aeschylus' Seven Against Thebes before Plato. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_State Unfortunately, many of the same criticisms apply to sortition as apply to Plato. The problem is that no-one really has access to the "Form of the Good", and no-one can accurately predict what the overall outcome of a decision is going to be over the very long run, however much they study it. In fact, as Popper argues, you're quite likely to draw the wrong conclusion and end up going horribly wrong. On balance, I'd rather put my faith in a large number of people selected from all social backgrounds than a small number of people selected from a potentially narrow social background. There's also a sense of shared agency about the decision making. If it turns out the wrong decision has been made, what are we to say to the person who is not only on the receiving end of said bad decision, but wasn't even allowed to vote on it? It also seems to me that one should be wary about making sweeping statements about a system that has endured for thousands of years in the wake of a decision that they themselves disagreed with.

alienasa 10y ago
Did you read the whole article? His most significant proposal is that modern democracies adjust their procedures to use something called "sortition" that dates back to ancient Greece. In sortition, rather than polling the entire populace about complicated issues on which they are likely not well informed, we select a balanced random sample of people from the populace , provide them information, and then allow them to engage each other on the issue. Then we have those people vote. This has several advantages: 1. It actually places "faith in a large number of people selected from all social backgrounds" depending on how large your sample, as opposed to letting elected politicians decide, which is the definition of "a small number of people selected from a potentially narrow social background". 2. It solves the problem where a huge number of people end up voting because of gut instinct or misinformation. Consider the passage of Proposition 13 in California which prohibits the raising of property taxes. If you poll the entire population, that referendum is going to win 100 times out of 100, because for most people the gut check decision is "no I don't want my taxes to go up". However, the correct way to consider that proposition is to get an understanding of how property taxes are used, how they are collected, what the procedures are for changing them in the legislature, etc. and then come to a determination. That determination might be "Yes", it might be "No", or it might be "we should not limit increases in property tax rates but instead limit increases to the real value of collected taxes, by accounting for changes in property values". [1] [1] I'm not proposing that is the right answer, I'm just suggesting that you might arrive at that conclusion if you actually had time to study the issue. Almost by definition, the vast majority of people do not have that time.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Sortition is almost what we have elected politicians for isn't it? The default case? Referendums are for very important cases were we suspect politicians are out of touch with ordinary people. This has been a nagging issue in UK for years and finally they figured it was better to ask the people.
  - tremon 10y ago
    Sortition is based on chance, instead of agreeableness. Referendums are a great idea, but I think that the British yes/no vote was way too simple to game. Using hindsight to save the day, given that there appears to be no gameplan for where to go now, maybe the different options should have been explored before putting it to a vote: * remain in the EU * leave the EU, remain in the single market * leave the single market * leave the single market, destroy the chunnel At least with a referendum like that, you force the people to have a content-filled opinion, instead of relying just on an empty "no". That also reduces the options for tea-leaf reading by the losing side.
    - kristianc 10y ago
      I wonder if a referendum constructed in that way would actually make decision making worse. As I see it, the public have voted to Leave, but some of the options for Leave are actually quite appealing, and would even appeal to some pragmatic Remainers (Norway-style EFTA agreement, join Schengen, negotiate trade agreements with the EU from the outside on a common basis with other EFTA countries, allow Eurozone to integrate closer). By allowing the public to decide not only the decision but the details of the implementation (although I'm sure you weren't 100% serious with the "destroy chunnel" option) you increase the scope for voters to choose the worst one out of sheer spite.
      - tremon 10y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean with "make decision making worse". Are you suggesting that having the EFTA option explicitly listed might have made even less people choose "remain in EU"? I'd say that in that case, the government has been given a clear mandate on what route to pursue. Right now, I don't think the Leave side has any idea if the public wants the EFTA option, the "own island first" option, or the chunnel option. Thinking about that last option some more, maybe it would make sense to put a nuclear option (like "destroy chunnel") on the ballot, to weed out the spiteful votes from the constructive ones. Even if you explain beforehand that the chunnel will never be closed -- some people just need to vent.

alienasa 10y ago

Did you read the whole article? His most significant proposal is that modern democracies adjust their procedures to use something called "sortition" that dates back to ancient Greece. In sortition, rather than polling the entire populace about complicated issues on which they are likely not well informed, we select a balanced random sample of people from the populace , provide them information, and then allow them to engage each other on the issue. Then we have those people vote. This has several advantages: 1. It actually places "faith in a large number of people selected from all social backgrounds" depending on how large your sample, as opposed to letting elected politicians decide, which is the definition of "a small number of people selected from a potentially narrow social background". 2. It solves the problem where a huge number of people end up voting because of gut instinct or misinformation. Consider the passage of Proposition 13 in California which prohibits the raising of property taxes. If you poll the entire population, that referendum is going to win 100 times out of 100, because for most people the gut check decision is "no I don't want my taxes to go up". However, the correct way to consider that proposition is to get an understanding of how property taxes are used, how they are collected, what the procedures are for changing them in the legislature, etc. and then come to a determination. That determination might be "Yes", it might be "No", or it might be "we should not limit increases in property tax rates but instead limit increases to the real value of collected taxes, by accounting for changes in property values". [1] [1] I'm not proposing that is the right answer, I'm just suggesting that you might arrive at that conclusion if you actually had time to study the issue. Almost by definition, the vast majority of people do not have that time.

reitanqild 10y ago
Sortition is almost what we have elected politicians for isn't it? The default case? Referendums are for very important cases were we suspect politicians are out of touch with ordinary people. This has been a nagging issue in UK for years and finally they figured it was better to ask the people.
- tremon 10y ago
  Sortition is based on chance, instead of agreeableness. Referendums are a great idea, but I think that the British yes/no vote was way too simple to game. Using hindsight to save the day, given that there appears to be no gameplan for where to go now, maybe the different options should have been explored before putting it to a vote: * remain in the EU * leave the EU, remain in the single market * leave the single market * leave the single market, destroy the chunnel At least with a referendum like that, you force the people to have a content-filled opinion, instead of relying just on an empty "no". That also reduces the options for tea-leaf reading by the losing side.
  - kristianc 10y ago
    I wonder if a referendum constructed in that way would actually make decision making worse. As I see it, the public have voted to Leave, but some of the options for Leave are actually quite appealing, and would even appeal to some pragmatic Remainers (Norway-style EFTA agreement, join Schengen, negotiate trade agreements with the EU from the outside on a common basis with other EFTA countries, allow Eurozone to integrate closer). By allowing the public to decide not only the decision but the details of the implementation (although I'm sure you weren't 100% serious with the "destroy chunnel" option) you increase the scope for voters to choose the worst one out of sheer spite.
    - tremon 10y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean with "make decision making worse". Are you suggesting that having the EFTA option explicitly listed might have made even less people choose "remain in EU"? I'd say that in that case, the government has been given a clear mandate on what route to pursue. Right now, I don't think the Leave side has any idea if the public wants the EFTA option, the "own island first" option, or the chunnel option. Thinking about that last option some more, maybe it would make sense to put a nuclear option (like "destroy chunnel") on the ballot, to weed out the spiteful votes from the constructive ones. Even if you explain beforehand that the chunnel will never be closed -- some people just need to vent.