9 ms·

The greeks had two institutions we could use: ostracism and lottery. We should be able to vote on those we want out of politics and the most voted would have t

The greeks had two institutions we could use: ostracism and lottery. We should be able to vote on those we want out of politics and the most voted would have to seat it out. And a small portion of representatives should be chosen by lottery. Maybe 5% or 10%. These representatives, obviously, would not have to answer to their sponsors.

bilbo0s 8y ago
Those were always pretty interesting ideas to me, and I always used to wonder why the Founders did not replicate those facets of the Athenian Republic? It would solve a lot of our problems today.
- danielvf 8y ago
  In general, the founders thought Greek style democracy was a horrible system of government. Inevitably incompetent, bloody, unjust, rash, and would quickly self destruct. When the French Revolution happened - with chaos, purges, wars, and then an emperor taking over the country - the founders basically said “I told you so”. Here’s an example. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    But the French did not have the Athenian safeguards either.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- kmonsen 8y ago
  The founders wanted a republic governed by rich landowners. Preferably white and wasp.
- benmmurphy 8y ago
  Someone who has political aspirations is unlikely to push for a system where the political jobs are allocated by lottery.
breuleux 8y ago
Actually, why not choose all representatives by lottery? I don't think representatives need to have any particular competencies beyond being representative of the interests of the population. Hired staff can take care of things that require particular abilities. I reckon that a wholly random set of representatives would act like a direct democracy where every voter is free to fully focus on the issues, is allowed an entire staff to help them, and can consult and coordinate effectively with other voters. I think that could work pretty well.
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  The Greeks who entered the lottery weren't chosen by a (meta) lottery. Greek democracy wasn't nearly as democratic as you may think.
  - breuleux 8y ago
    Oh, I'm aware. I'm arguing for universal lottery, and I think it would work.
    - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
      Bribery would be more rampant than it is now. With no career aspirations to keep them in line, unethical people would take the lobbyist money and run.
      - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        Bribery doesn't seem rampant in jury service, where members are chosen by lottery. I'm sure we could find ways to keep bribery away.
        sokoloff 8y ago
        If you picked and announced the jurors 60-425 days before they had to serve, I bet you'd see bribery in jury duty emerge.
fmahaztra 8y ago
Assuming I'm understanding it correctly, wouldn't the first one be a huge disincentive for the passing of politically/socially unpopular policies that are beneficial in the long-term?
- forinti 8y ago
  You wouldn't be able to vote everyone into ostracism. Only the most disliked politicians would be thrown out of the game.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> The greeks had two institutions we could use: ostracism and lottery To expand on the former, if a majority of Athenians voted to hold an ostracism vote, two months later, the person with the most votes (potentially over a minimum) was banished from the city for 10 years [1]. One can imagine a gentler modern version. Every ballot must have an ostracism line. Every candidate on that ballot must appear on this line. If a simple majority of voters choose the same person, a second one-line election is held in 2 months. If a simple majority of voters, two months later, vote again to ostracize, the candidate is barred from appearing on that jurisdiction's ballots for 8 years. So if a majority of New Yorkers say Richard Nixon is ostracized, he is simply unable to appear on New York ballots for 8 years. Given the ballot will contain all manner of candidates running for many different offices, this makes it sufficiently difficult to ostracism while providing an incentive against polarization. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
yongjik 8y ago
Imagine Google or Facebook hiring 5% of their developers by lottery. Take all applicants, no questions asked, pick randomly. I can't fathom why people think "managing a country" requires less skills than managing servers. The consequences of hiring someone unqualified is certainly not less severe.
- duggan 8y ago
  I imagine in that scenario that Google and Facebook would get particularly good at resilience and security. Once you've got enough people, 5% of them may as well have been hired by lottery, depending on what you're measuring. People get less productive, more productive, want to change the company, decide to steal things, etc. I think it's interesting to think about.
- breuleux 8y ago
  Consider that the system would be rethought accordingly, though. Representatives picked by lottery would not "manage" the country: they would hire qualified people to do so, and they would supervise their work according to their values. The point of the lottery, at least the way I see it, is to have an unbiased random sample of the population oversee the government, but not to actually run it.

bilbo0s 8y ago

Those were always pretty interesting ideas to me, and I always used to wonder why the Founders did not replicate those facets of the Athenian Republic? It would solve a lot of our problems today.

danielvf 8y ago
In general, the founders thought Greek style democracy was a horrible system of government. Inevitably incompetent, bloody, unjust, rash, and would quickly self destruct. When the French Revolution happened - with chaos, purges, wars, and then an emperor taking over the country - the founders basically said “I told you so”. Here’s an example. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  But the French did not have the Athenian safeguards either.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
kmonsen 8y ago
The founders wanted a republic governed by rich landowners. Preferably white and wasp.
benmmurphy 8y ago
Someone who has political aspirations is unlikely to push for a system where the political jobs are allocated by lottery.

breuleux 8y ago

Actually, why not choose all representatives by lottery? I don't think representatives need to have any particular competencies beyond being representative of the interests of the population. Hired staff can take care of things that require particular abilities. I reckon that a wholly random set of representatives would act like a direct democracy where every voter is free to fully focus on the issues, is allowed an entire staff to help them, and can consult and coordinate effectively with other voters. I think that could work pretty well.

vanderZwan 8y ago
The Greeks who entered the lottery weren't chosen by a (meta) lottery. Greek democracy wasn't nearly as democratic as you may think.
- breuleux 8y ago
  Oh, I'm aware. I'm arguing for universal lottery, and I think it would work.
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    Bribery would be more rampant than it is now. With no career aspirations to keep them in line, unethical people would take the lobbyist money and run.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      Bribery doesn't seem rampant in jury service, where members are chosen by lottery. I'm sure we could find ways to keep bribery away.
      - sokoloff 8y ago
        If you picked and announced the jurors 60-425 days before they had to serve, I bet you'd see bribery in jury duty emerge.

fmahaztra 8y ago

Assuming I'm understanding it correctly, wouldn't the first one be a huge disincentive for the passing of politically/socially unpopular policies that are beneficial in the long-term?

forinti 8y ago
You wouldn't be able to vote everyone into ostracism. Only the most disliked politicians would be thrown out of the game.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> The greeks had two institutions we could use: ostracism and lottery To expand on the former, if a majority of Athenians voted to hold an ostracism vote, two months later, the person with the most votes (potentially over a minimum) was banished from the city for 10 years [1]. One can imagine a gentler modern version. Every ballot must have an ostracism line. Every candidate on that ballot must appear on this line. If a simple majority of voters choose the same person, a second one-line election is held in 2 months. If a simple majority of voters, two months later, vote again to ostracize, the candidate is barred from appearing on that jurisdiction's ballots for 8 years. So if a majority of New Yorkers say Richard Nixon is ostracized, he is simply unable to appear on New York ballots for 8 years. Given the ballot will contain all manner of candidates running for many different offices, this makes it sufficiently difficult to ostracism while providing an incentive against polarization. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

yongjik 8y ago

Imagine Google or Facebook hiring 5% of their developers by lottery. Take all applicants, no questions asked, pick randomly. I can't fathom why people think "managing a country" requires less skills than managing servers. The consequences of hiring someone unqualified is certainly not less severe.

duggan 8y ago
I imagine in that scenario that Google and Facebook would get particularly good at resilience and security. Once you've got enough people, 5% of them may as well have been hired by lottery, depending on what you're measuring. People get less productive, more productive, want to change the company, decide to steal things, etc. I think it's interesting to think about.
breuleux 8y ago
Consider that the system would be rethought accordingly, though. Representatives picked by lottery would not "manage" the country: they would hire qualified people to do so, and they would supervise their work according to their values. The point of the lottery, at least the way I see it, is to have an unbiased random sample of the population oversee the government, but not to actually run it.