6 ms·

Sortition[1]. It's been tried before, with some success. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

pastacacioepepe 4y ago
How are you going to work on long term plans with sortition? At least with vote elections if you are doing well you can be voted again to keep doing what you do.
- lapcat 4y ago
  How are you going to work on long term plans with elections every 2 or 4 years? Every politician is always looking to the next election, not to the longer term. The lack of "next election" pressure gives sortition the advantage in looking to the future instead of the short term. Elections are what drive corruption and short term thinking.
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    > How are you going to work on long term plans with elections every 2 or 4 years? Oh I completely agree. I'm not in favor of the current system, more dubious of randomly picking rulers. If you look at efficiency, authocratic countries are working much better than democratic ones at the moment.
    - yladiz 4y ago
      It’s misleading because they seem to function better but in the long term they always have significant systemic issues due to the political system that are either nonexistent or minimized in a more democratic society.
    - gotorazor 4y ago
      If an autocratic country isn't doing well, how would you know? Who would loudly say anything? Please also note that many forms of non-democratic government. Some work better than others.
      - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
        > If an autocratic country isn't doing well, how would you know? Who would loudly say anything? Protests and rebellions happen all the time, no matter how heavily autocratic a country is. You see this everywhere in the world, look at Iran where protesters are shot but keep protesting. Hell, just look at history, look at how much lives have been sacrificed on the altar of revolution. I don't believe that any autocracy could suppress discontent enough for the rest of the world to not know, if widely spread.
    - Tainnor 4y ago
      > If you look at efficiency, authocratic countries are working much better than democratic ones at the moment. Like Erdogan's Turkey where inflation is currently at 83%? Or Putin's Russia that can't even launch a successful military campaign against a supposedly weaker opponent? Or China who's unsuccessfully been trying to stamp out Covid for months now with brutal lockdowns harsher than anything that covid skepticists are talking about in the West? Or Venezuela? North Korea?
      - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
        You mean the same Russia that is surviving economic and military war from the entire west while Europe risks a political and economical collapse this winter, or the Venezuela that survives despite inhumane sanctions imposed by the US, or the China that lifted hundreds of millions from poverty and that can build a colossal sophisticated high speed transport system in mere years while the US can't even build a small high speed railway in California without gigantic cost increases and delays of years, or even the Cuba that despite decades of inhumane sanctions from the US has one of the most advanced healthcare systems in the world?
        mcv 4y ago
        > the same Russia that is surviving economic and military war from the entire west while Europe risks a political and economical collapse this winter, It's not a war "from the entire west". The war is from Russia. They started a war that they can't finish, but even before the war, Russia hasn't been doing great, whereas all their former vassal states that have changed to democratic systems have been doing very well. In fact, that's part of the reason for Putin's war: if Ukraine goes the same route, that would show more clearly to the Russian people how badly Putin's system is failing, and they might demand the same for Russia. In fact, part of the reason that Russia is performing so badly in this war, is Russia's autocracy. Many officials who are supposed to inform Putin or perform certain military roles, are doing so not with the goal of doing the best possible job, but with the goal of not angering Putin. Because he can break them. So they lie about any bad news, which has lead Putin to start a bad war based on faulty information, with an army that's poorly lead.
  - gotorazor 4y ago
    If you look at even absolutist monarchs in Europe, they have constituents (lobbying groups) they have to listen to, the peasants and townfolks to appease, the nobility to seek support from, powerful breakaway independent Lords to manage, potential rival claimants inside and outside the kingdom. Politics still happens outside of democracies. The difference is just that our system of government, the "People" is given a formal primacy. Corruptions and short-term thinking happens with or without elections.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > Politics still happens outside of democracies. Nobody is suggesting that a randomly selected legislature shouldn't listen to anyone outside themselves. The difference is that a randomly selected legislature for fixed single term in office never has to worry about gaining or maintaining power, because they will definitely lose power when their term in office is up. Whereas both elected politicians and monarchs always have to worry about gaining and maintaining power, the former via elections and the latter via military superiority over rivals. Politicians lose elections, whereas monarchs lose their heads. ;-)
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > How are you going to work on long term plans with elections every 2 or 4 years? The executive and legislative branch make decisions, supposedly seeking consensus as part of their decision-making process. If you're arguing that consensus are not important or a basic requirement of a democracy, and long term plans can only be implemented if they are dictated by an autocratic government then the problem is another one.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > If you're arguing that consensus are not important or a basic requirement of a democracy, and long term plans can only be implemented if they are dictated by an autocratic government then the problem is another one. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that a legislature randomly selected from the population is actually more likely to seek consensus and do long term planning than a legislature of power-hungry politicians.
- gotorazor 4y ago
  It doesn't. Sortition is more like random sampling of the overall population. The assumption is that those being sampled are already "qualified," since Athenian citizens only make up the top 10% of the population. And, anybody who gets picked usually has some kind of qualifying process after the lottery. Additionally, it is typically used for large bodies (like members of a legislature) rather than a single office (like a President.) This limits the damage any one single individual can make. I don't think the ancient Greeks believe in "Long Term Planning" in the way we believe it today. For that, you would have to believe in the "future" and "progress".
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    I feel this could work if the "random rulers" would only work as administrators, legally required to follow a long term political plan that has been defined democratically with the population. I believe in both the future and progress, so a long term plan is required to me. Look at China and what they're accomplishing with their 2035 plan. I whish my country's politicians could think at least 15 years in the future when they legislate.
  - mcv 4y ago
    It's an interesting idea, but I think the more important part is ensuring that the candidates are qualified. Of course whoever decides on who's qualified or not will have a lot of power over the process. There needs to be some sort of objective measure to determine that, and that's going to be hard, and constantly subject to attempts to allow or ban popular controversial candidates. Personally I've been thinking if maybe it would be a good idea if everybody could both vote for someone, and against someone else. That way, the most controversial candidates would never be able to win. Athens had a slightly harsher system where people would vote to banish anyone who was deemed to have become too powerful. On the other hand, if the system is too moderating, it could become too conservative and it might become impossible to change the system once it's on a certain course; any popular newcomer who wants to address certain problems in the system would immediately be blocked by everybody who benefits from those problems.
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  Interesting point. One possible solution might be to replace the parliament gradually. Rather then having an election every four years, you might replace one member of parliament with a randomly choosen citizen every week.

pastacacioepepe 4y ago

How are you going to work on long term plans with sortition? At least with vote elections if you are doing well you can be voted again to keep doing what you do.

lapcat 4y ago
How are you going to work on long term plans with elections every 2 or 4 years? Every politician is always looking to the next election, not to the longer term. The lack of "next election" pressure gives sortition the advantage in looking to the future instead of the short term. Elections are what drive corruption and short term thinking.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  > How are you going to work on long term plans with elections every 2 or 4 years? Oh I completely agree. I'm not in favor of the current system, more dubious of randomly picking rulers. If you look at efficiency, authocratic countries are working much better than democratic ones at the moment.
  - yladiz 4y ago
    It’s misleading because they seem to function better but in the long term they always have significant systemic issues due to the political system that are either nonexistent or minimized in a more democratic society.
  - gotorazor 4y ago
    If an autocratic country isn't doing well, how would you know? Who would loudly say anything? Please also note that many forms of non-democratic government. Some work better than others.
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      > If an autocratic country isn't doing well, how would you know? Who would loudly say anything? Protests and rebellions happen all the time, no matter how heavily autocratic a country is. You see this everywhere in the world, look at Iran where protesters are shot but keep protesting. Hell, just look at history, look at how much lives have been sacrificed on the altar of revolution. I don't believe that any autocracy could suppress discontent enough for the rest of the world to not know, if widely spread.
  - Tainnor 4y ago
    > If you look at efficiency, authocratic countries are working much better than democratic ones at the moment. Like Erdogan's Turkey where inflation is currently at 83%? Or Putin's Russia that can't even launch a successful military campaign against a supposedly weaker opponent? Or China who's unsuccessfully been trying to stamp out Covid for months now with brutal lockdowns harsher than anything that covid skepticists are talking about in the West? Or Venezuela? North Korea?
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      You mean the same Russia that is surviving economic and military war from the entire west while Europe risks a political and economical collapse this winter, or the Venezuela that survives despite inhumane sanctions imposed by the US, or the China that lifted hundreds of millions from poverty and that can build a colossal sophisticated high speed transport system in mere years while the US can't even build a small high speed railway in California without gigantic cost increases and delays of years, or even the Cuba that despite decades of inhumane sanctions from the US has one of the most advanced healthcare systems in the world?
      - mcv 4y ago
        > the same Russia that is surviving economic and military war from the entire west while Europe risks a political and economical collapse this winter, It's not a war "from the entire west". The war is from Russia. They started a war that they can't finish, but even before the war, Russia hasn't been doing great, whereas all their former vassal states that have changed to democratic systems have been doing very well. In fact, that's part of the reason for Putin's war: if Ukraine goes the same route, that would show more clearly to the Russian people how badly Putin's system is failing, and they might demand the same for Russia. In fact, part of the reason that Russia is performing so badly in this war, is Russia's autocracy. Many officials who are supposed to inform Putin or perform certain military roles, are doing so not with the goal of doing the best possible job, but with the goal of not angering Putin. Because he can break them. So they lie about any bad news, which has lead Putin to start a bad war based on faulty information, with an army that's poorly lead.
- gotorazor 4y ago
  If you look at even absolutist monarchs in Europe, they have constituents (lobbying groups) they have to listen to, the peasants and townfolks to appease, the nobility to seek support from, powerful breakaway independent Lords to manage, potential rival claimants inside and outside the kingdom. Politics still happens outside of democracies. The difference is just that our system of government, the "People" is given a formal primacy. Corruptions and short-term thinking happens with or without elections.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Politics still happens outside of democracies. Nobody is suggesting that a randomly selected legislature shouldn't listen to anyone outside themselves. The difference is that a randomly selected legislature for fixed single term in office never has to worry about gaining or maintaining power, because they will definitely lose power when their term in office is up. Whereas both elected politicians and monarchs always have to worry about gaining and maintaining power, the former via elections and the latter via military superiority over rivals. Politicians lose elections, whereas monarchs lose their heads. ;-)
- simplotek 4y ago
  > How are you going to work on long term plans with elections every 2 or 4 years? The executive and legislative branch make decisions, supposedly seeking consensus as part of their decision-making process. If you're arguing that consensus are not important or a basic requirement of a democracy, and long term plans can only be implemented if they are dictated by an autocratic government then the problem is another one.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > If you're arguing that consensus are not important or a basic requirement of a democracy, and long term plans can only be implemented if they are dictated by an autocratic government then the problem is another one. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that a legislature randomly selected from the population is actually more likely to seek consensus and do long term planning than a legislature of power-hungry politicians.
gotorazor 4y ago
It doesn't. Sortition is more like random sampling of the overall population. The assumption is that those being sampled are already "qualified," since Athenian citizens only make up the top 10% of the population. And, anybody who gets picked usually has some kind of qualifying process after the lottery. Additionally, it is typically used for large bodies (like members of a legislature) rather than a single office (like a President.) This limits the damage any one single individual can make. I don't think the ancient Greeks believe in "Long Term Planning" in the way we believe it today. For that, you would have to believe in the "future" and "progress".
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  I feel this could work if the "random rulers" would only work as administrators, legally required to follow a long term political plan that has been defined democratically with the population. I believe in both the future and progress, so a long term plan is required to me. Look at China and what they're accomplishing with their 2035 plan. I whish my country's politicians could think at least 15 years in the future when they legislate.
- mcv 4y ago
  It's an interesting idea, but I think the more important part is ensuring that the candidates are qualified. Of course whoever decides on who's qualified or not will have a lot of power over the process. There needs to be some sort of objective measure to determine that, and that's going to be hard, and constantly subject to attempts to allow or ban popular controversial candidates. Personally I've been thinking if maybe it would be a good idea if everybody could both vote for someone, and against someone else. That way, the most controversial candidates would never be able to win. Athens had a slightly harsher system where people would vote to banish anyone who was deemed to have become too powerful. On the other hand, if the system is too moderating, it could become too conservative and it might become impossible to change the system once it's on a certain course; any popular newcomer who wants to address certain problems in the system would immediately be blocked by everybody who benefits from those problems.
amadeuspagel 4y ago
Interesting point. One possible solution might be to replace the parliament gradually. Rather then having an election every four years, you might replace one member of parliament with a randomly choosen citizen every week.