6 ms·

Zero correlation is a strong claim. Would you actually predict that a randomly chosen American (whose opinion you distrust) would be all-around more competent t

by orzig 4y ago

Zero correlation is a strong claim. Would you actually predict that a randomly chosen American (whose opinion you distrust) would be all-around more competent than half our actual presidents? Not just the current or last one depending on your affiliation.

rdl 4y ago
I think sortition is superior to election for most offices, especially those which should be relatively proscribed in what they do, not requiring exceptional competence, etc. I'd almost certainly prefer a mechanically determined pool (say, all Walmart store general managers as of 2020 who are natural-born citizens, >35, not felons, etc), and then randomly pick the President from that pool. Maybe let people use negative voting to eliminate 10-50% of the pool first.
- orzig 4y ago
  I actually really love that idea. Thanks for expanding my mind about what is possible, maybe I can find a way to use it in human systems I do control
dudul 4y ago
A randomly chosen group of Americans, who would not take any campaign donation, who would be truly held accountable for their actions/decisions while in office would, according to me, make better decisions than half of the past presidents.
adrian_b 4y ago
There have been a few US presidents that have been much better than it is likely for a randomly chosen American to be. Unfortunately, among recent US presidents, there have also been many who have been much worse than it can be expected for a randomly chosen American to be. I do not believe that it is possible to make with any certainty an estimate of which president selection system would have been superior, i.e. how the better and worse presidents would have been compensated in the 2 systems. So judging from the US historical experience, it is impossible to reject the system of a random selection of the president, like for jury members, as clearly inferior to a president voted by the people. Maybe a combined system would be better, with a set of presidential candidates chosen randomly from all citizens, one of which is elected by popular vote. This would exclude the people addicted to power who have progressed inside their party through dubious means, becoming the party candidates.
tech2 4y ago
I've occasionally toyed with the thought that political duty should be managed in a similar manner as jury duty. (One of) The problems with political representatives is that they _want_ to be politicians. Either as a means to an end, or as a mechanism to better serve themselves or others like them. On more rare occasions you find the occasional altruist. Since there's a selection bias going on, how can the current crop act as representatives of their populace when they aren't _like_ those they claim to represent?
- shlurpy 4y ago
  I think the jury thing is onto something... a small group rather then an individual can work wonders to cover for the failings and corruptability of the others.
hunglee2 4y ago
i think randomised leadership might well work just as well. Certainly we can say it would be more efficient - no campaigning, no pandering to the crowd, no making decisions just to be elected again. More I think on it, the better it sounds!
choko 4y ago
A better contrast would be whether or not you trust a random to do a better job than half the presidents elected after the social media explosion post 2000. Social media and the internet have changed politics to a very large degree.
dudul 4y ago
As a long time supporter of sortition since i studied the functioning of the Athenian Republic, I am pleasantly surprised by the positive comments under this thread. It is an idea that is usually so quickly dismissed with "what if we pick a total idiot!?" - as if people optimizing for campaigning as opposed to governing couldn't end up being total idiots as well.

by orzig 4y ago

rdl 4y ago

I think sortition is superior to election for most offices, especially those which should be relatively proscribed in what they do, not requiring exceptional competence, etc. I'd almost certainly prefer a mechanically determined pool (say, all Walmart store general managers as of 2020 who are natural-born citizens, >35, not felons, etc), and then randomly pick the President from that pool. Maybe let people use negative voting to eliminate 10-50% of the pool first.

orzig 4y ago
I actually really love that idea. Thanks for expanding my mind about what is possible, maybe I can find a way to use it in human systems I do control

dudul 4y ago

A randomly chosen group of Americans, who would not take any campaign donation, who would be truly held accountable for their actions/decisions while in office would, according to me, make better decisions than half of the past presidents.

adrian_b 4y ago

There have been a few US presidents that have been much better than it is likely for a randomly chosen American to be. Unfortunately, among recent US presidents, there have also been many who have been much worse than it can be expected for a randomly chosen American to be. I do not believe that it is possible to make with any certainty an estimate of which president selection system would have been superior, i.e. how the better and worse presidents would have been compensated in the 2 systems. So judging from the US historical experience, it is impossible to reject the system of a random selection of the president, like for jury members, as clearly inferior to a president voted by the people. Maybe a combined system would be better, with a set of presidential candidates chosen randomly from all citizens, one of which is elected by popular vote. This would exclude the people addicted to power who have progressed inside their party through dubious means, becoming the party candidates.

tech2 4y ago

I've occasionally toyed with the thought that political duty should be managed in a similar manner as jury duty. (One of) The problems with political representatives is that they _want_ to be politicians. Either as a means to an end, or as a mechanism to better serve themselves or others like them. On more rare occasions you find the occasional altruist. Since there's a selection bias going on, how can the current crop act as representatives of their populace when they aren't _like_ those they claim to represent?

shlurpy 4y ago
I think the jury thing is onto something... a small group rather then an individual can work wonders to cover for the failings and corruptability of the others.

hunglee2 4y ago

i think randomised leadership might well work just as well. Certainly we can say it would be more efficient - no campaigning, no pandering to the crowd, no making decisions just to be elected again. More I think on it, the better it sounds!

choko 4y ago

A better contrast would be whether or not you trust a random to do a better job than half the presidents elected after the social media explosion post 2000. Social media and the internet have changed politics to a very large degree.

dudul 4y ago

As a long time supporter of sortition since i studied the functioning of the Athenian Republic, I am pleasantly surprised by the positive comments under this thread. It is an idea that is usually so quickly dismissed with "what if we pick a total idiot!?" - as if people optimizing for campaigning as opposed to governing couldn't end up being total idiots as well.