6 ms·

For people interested in random selection of representatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

by Loic 4y ago

thechao 4y ago
The research I've seen (slight) is that a random person is, on average, a more competent statesman than the average politician. (This is a result of the self-selection bias in people choosing a political career.) The major downside is a lack of accountability; however, at least in large parts of the US, factionalism & gerrymandering have almost completely removed accountability, so we're not really losing anything.
- rocqua 4y ago
  Links to the research?
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    I don't know if this helps: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344163235_Sortition_its_advocates_and_its_critics_An_empirical_analysis_of_citizens'_and_MPs'_support_for_random_selection_as_a_democratic_reform_proposal https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344163235_Sortition... MP means Member of Parliament (or equivalent representative of a democratic government). Belgium has been a hot-spot for this kind of initiative.
- pdabbadabba 4y ago
  Can you point us to any of that research? I'd be very interested to see how they managed to measure people's competence to serve as government officials. I'm frankly skeptical that can be done in a useful way.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
  I find this idea somewhat compelling. Anecdotally, my favorite boss was someone who did not want the job. He just looked around and realized the alternatives were worse. Meanwhile, everyone else seems to have arrived at the position by wanting the power/wealth of continuing to climb the ladder.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  > The research I've seen (slight) is that a random person is, on average, a more competent statesman than the average politician. (This is a result of the self-selection bias in people choosing a political career.) This seems extremely unlikely just by virtue of the fact that the average person has an IQ of 100 and the average MP doesn’t. Practically guaranteed to be above 115. There are very large differences in education. The median voter in the US is over 50 and never went to, never mind graduate from, college.
  - eru 4y ago
    Yes. For that reason, instead of picking people directly at random, pick ballots at random to fill up parliament. In theory, you could pick random votes first, and then ask them about their choice. But there's all kinds of targeted influence possible at that stage. So let voters make their choice first, and then pick randomly. You'd need some kind of resolution mechanism for when multiple random ballots have the same candidate on them. Eg give the guys vote in parliament a higher weight, or have people write down multiple candidates in order, or just pick another random vote etc. (Some resolution mechanisms might work better than others. I don't know.)
toss1 4y ago
YES! I've long thought that once a person attains a certain level of success, roughly including college degree, certain military rank, managerial position of certain scope at medium-large company, etc., they should be subject to random political service in state or federal legislature or executive branches. Perhaps after one term, they can stand for re-election for maximum of two terms, 10 years max, to take advantage of experience gained. Pay should be greater of a set level or 110% of their max earnings in previous 5yrs (so service is not punitive). There would of course be some random evil and grifters, but their concentration and ability to embed for life would be very limited. How we get from constitutional structure to there is another question.
- eru 4y ago
  I'm all in favour of sortition, but I don't think it's a good idea to force people to serve. Just pick randomly from all willing candidates to fill up parliament. Or even better: still have elections were people can vote for willing candidates, but instead of picking the winner by some kind of majority or proportionality scheme, you pick n ballots at random to fill up the n seats in parliament. (You can come up with your favourite scheme to handle the case when a single candidate gets multiple votes for her selected. Eg give her extra weight in decisions?) I would suggest using sortition only for instances where the law of large numbers helps you. Eg for filling up a parliament with a few hundred representatives, but not for picking a single president.

For people interested in random selection of representatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

by Loic 4y ago

For people interested in random selection of representatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

thechao 4y ago

The research I've seen (slight) is that a random person is, on average, a more competent statesman than the average politician. (This is a result of the self-selection bias in people choosing a political career.) The major downside is a lack of accountability; however, at least in large parts of the US, factionalism & gerrymandering have almost completely removed accountability, so we're not really losing anything.

rocqua 4y ago
Links to the research?
- Supermancho 4y ago
  I don't know if this helps: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344163235_Sortition_its_advocates_and_its_critics_An_empirical_analysis_of_citizens'_and_MPs'_support_for_random_selection_as_a_democratic_reform_proposal https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344163235_Sortition... MP means Member of Parliament (or equivalent representative of a democratic government). Belgium has been a hot-spot for this kind of initiative.
pdabbadabba 4y ago
Can you point us to any of that research? I'd be very interested to see how they managed to measure people's competence to serve as government officials. I'm frankly skeptical that can be done in a useful way.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
I find this idea somewhat compelling. Anecdotally, my favorite boss was someone who did not want the job. He just looked around and realized the alternatives were worse. Meanwhile, everyone else seems to have arrived at the position by wanting the power/wealth of continuing to climb the ladder.
barry-cotter 4y ago
> The research I've seen (slight) is that a random person is, on average, a more competent statesman than the average politician. (This is a result of the self-selection bias in people choosing a political career.) This seems extremely unlikely just by virtue of the fact that the average person has an IQ of 100 and the average MP doesn’t. Practically guaranteed to be above 115. There are very large differences in education. The median voter in the US is over 50 and never went to, never mind graduate from, college.
- eru 4y ago
  Yes. For that reason, instead of picking people directly at random, pick ballots at random to fill up parliament. In theory, you could pick random votes first, and then ask them about their choice. But there's all kinds of targeted influence possible at that stage. So let voters make their choice first, and then pick randomly. You'd need some kind of resolution mechanism for when multiple random ballots have the same candidate on them. Eg give the guys vote in parliament a higher weight, or have people write down multiple candidates in order, or just pick another random vote etc. (Some resolution mechanisms might work better than others. I don't know.)

toss1 4y ago

YES! I've long thought that once a person attains a certain level of success, roughly including college degree, certain military rank, managerial position of certain scope at medium-large company, etc., they should be subject to random political service in state or federal legislature or executive branches. Perhaps after one term, they can stand for re-election for maximum of two terms, 10 years max, to take advantage of experience gained. Pay should be greater of a set level or 110% of their max earnings in previous 5yrs (so service is not punitive). There would of course be some random evil and grifters, but their concentration and ability to embed for life would be very limited. How we get from constitutional structure to there is another question.

eru 4y ago
I'm all in favour of sortition, but I don't think it's a good idea to force people to serve. Just pick randomly from all willing candidates to fill up parliament. Or even better: still have elections were people can vote for willing candidates, but instead of picking the winner by some kind of majority or proportionality scheme, you pick n ballots at random to fill up the n seats in parliament. (You can come up with your favourite scheme to handle the case when a single candidate gets multiple votes for her selected. Eg give her extra weight in decisions?) I would suggest using sortition only for instances where the law of large numbers helps you. Eg for filling up a parliament with a few hundred representatives, but not for picking a single president.