3 ms·

There's demarchy - a random sampling of the population. Like democracy, it ensures that people have a way to change laws they don't like. Unlike democracy, it

There's demarchy - a random sampling of the population. Like democracy, it ensures that people have a way to change laws they don't like. Unlike democracy, it doesn't suffer from the fact that the corrupt or power hungry rise to the top. Lobbyists would have less power. There are also some suggestions that a random sampling of a population will lead to a better selection mechanism - similar to suggestions that promoting randomly would be better for organisations.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education/2010/nov/01/random-promotion-research https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Unlike democracy, it doesn't suffer from the fact that the corrupt or power hungry rise to the top. I don't see any reason to believe that is true in any substantive way. Most of the corrupting and influence mechanisms that work in democracy work in demarchy, and some are cheaper. OTOH, there's an entirely new corruption mechanism introduced, corrupting the “random” selection mechanism (either at the source or between the notional mechanism and the public reporting of results, which is ultimately what really matters).
- verbify 9y ago
  The idea is that the funding mechanisms at the heart of democracy comes with strings attached - people who are pretty much required to accept donations to get elected. These donations often have strings attached. Besides that 'The desire to be a politician should be enough to ban you from ever becoming one' (Bill Connolly), those who don't accept dubious donations will suffer in advertising dollars compared to those who do. Additionally it has been noted that psychopaths often rise to the top - a problem that isn't presented with demarchy.
andromeduck 9y ago
Can't you just bribe them when they're selected?
- verbify 9y ago
  Presumably ordinary people selected at random are harder to bribe than people who are pretty much required to accept donations to get elected. These donations often have strings attached. Besides that 'The desire to be a politician should be enough to ban you from ever becoming one' (Bill Connolly), those who don't accept dubious donations will suffer in advertising dollars compared to those who do.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Unlike democracy, it doesn't suffer from the fact that the corrupt or power hungry rise to the top. I don't see any reason to believe that is true in any substantive way. Most of the corrupting and influence mechanisms that work in democracy work in demarchy, and some are cheaper. OTOH, there's an entirely new corruption mechanism introduced, corrupting the “random” selection mechanism (either at the source or between the notional mechanism and the public reporting of results, which is ultimately what really matters).

verbify 9y ago
The idea is that the funding mechanisms at the heart of democracy comes with strings attached - people who are pretty much required to accept donations to get elected. These donations often have strings attached. Besides that 'The desire to be a politician should be enough to ban you from ever becoming one' (Bill Connolly), those who don't accept dubious donations will suffer in advertising dollars compared to those who do. Additionally it has been noted that psychopaths often rise to the top - a problem that isn't presented with demarchy.

andromeduck 9y ago

Can't you just bribe them when they're selected?

verbify 9y ago
Presumably ordinary people selected at random are harder to bribe than people who are pretty much required to accept donations to get elected. These donations often have strings attached. Besides that 'The desire to be a politician should be enough to ban you from ever becoming one' (Bill Connolly), those who don't accept dubious donations will suffer in advertising dollars compared to those who do.