5 ms·

Anybody's who gives this idea more than a minute of thought quickly finds out this is utter nonsense.

shkkmo 4y ago
Since I've spent over a decade this thinking about this, and think it clearly the best way to solve the problem of election, perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on why it seems like nonsense?
- julienreszka 4y ago
  Democracy by lottery is a very ancient idea, one that was tried in Athens and quickly abandoned because it resulted in disastrous consequences for the city. The consequences were so bad that the idea was never seriously considered again until now. Among the consequences: - The lot was usually determined by birth, so it tended to perpetuate privilege. - People who didn't want to serve often found ways to get out of it, so the people who ended up serving were often the ones who didn't want to. - It resulted in a lot of incompetent people in positions of power. - And perhaps worst of all, it tended to breed a culture of resentment and envy, since the people who were chosen by lot often felt that they didn't deserve it and the people who weren't chosen often felt that they did. The idea that democracy by lottery is a good idea is simply absurd.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > Democracy by lottery is a very ancient idea, one that was tried in Athens Yes, the article covers this. > and quickly abandoned because it resulted in disastrous consequences for the city. You're gonna need a citation for this. > The consequences were so bad that the idea was never seriously considered again until now. This is not factually accurate. The article mentions that sortition was seriously considered by some founders. It has also been used in various forms throughout the world. Several of those examples are discussed throughout this thread.
- loicd 4y ago
  I am not OP, but it seems to me that there is an obvious problem with it. If you select a truly random set of citizens to rule a country, there are no guarantees that you will get a representative sample of the citizenry. That's simply not how statistics work. Without any further selection, you will eventually (and sooner than you would expect) put terrible or incompetent people in power. Now, if the randomly selected citizens must go through a selection process or be moderated by experts, then the actual power is in the selection process and moderation, and there is nothing democratic about it. For what it is worth, I am French, and my country recently made a sortition experiment[1] that I found less than convincing. This was in response to the yellow vest movement. I did not feel represented by that 'citizens convention'. I do not know what part of their propositions come from them, and what part come from the experts advising them. Some of their propositions (like putting a more stringent speed limit on highways) were not implemented because, ironically, they were impopular. The whole thing felt like a failed experiment to me. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Convention_for_Climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Convention_for_Climat...
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > If you select a truly random set of citizens to rule a country, there are no guarantees that you will get a representative sample of the citizenry. Not sure that's the goal as such. The goal is to have a selection system that's incorruptible. > Without any further selection, you will eventually (and sooner than you would expect) put terrible or incompetent people in power. Well, we have that already. I like the odds of random selection a lot better. With the current system, we're practically guaranteed of getting terrible or incompetent people in power. > I am French, and my country recently made a sortition experiment[1] 150 people seems pretty small. The US House of Representatives has over 500 members.

Since I've spent over a decade this thinking about this, and think it clearly the best way to solve the problem of election, perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on why it seems like nonsense?

julienreszka 4y ago
Democracy by lottery is a very ancient idea, one that was tried in Athens and quickly abandoned because it resulted in disastrous consequences for the city. The consequences were so bad that the idea was never seriously considered again until now. Among the consequences: - The lot was usually determined by birth, so it tended to perpetuate privilege. - People who didn't want to serve often found ways to get out of it, so the people who ended up serving were often the ones who didn't want to. - It resulted in a lot of incompetent people in positions of power. - And perhaps worst of all, it tended to breed a culture of resentment and envy, since the people who were chosen by lot often felt that they didn't deserve it and the people who weren't chosen often felt that they did. The idea that democracy by lottery is a good idea is simply absurd.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > Democracy by lottery is a very ancient idea, one that was tried in Athens Yes, the article covers this. > and quickly abandoned because it resulted in disastrous consequences for the city. You're gonna need a citation for this. > The consequences were so bad that the idea was never seriously considered again until now. This is not factually accurate. The article mentions that sortition was seriously considered by some founders. It has also been used in various forms throughout the world. Several of those examples are discussed throughout this thread.
loicd 4y ago
I am not OP, but it seems to me that there is an obvious problem with it. If you select a truly random set of citizens to rule a country, there are no guarantees that you will get a representative sample of the citizenry. That's simply not how statistics work. Without any further selection, you will eventually (and sooner than you would expect) put terrible or incompetent people in power. Now, if the randomly selected citizens must go through a selection process or be moderated by experts, then the actual power is in the selection process and moderation, and there is nothing democratic about it. For what it is worth, I am French, and my country recently made a sortition experiment[1] that I found less than convincing. This was in response to the yellow vest movement. I did not feel represented by that 'citizens convention'. I do not know what part of their propositions come from them, and what part come from the experts advising them. Some of their propositions (like putting a more stringent speed limit on highways) were not implemented because, ironically, they were impopular. The whole thing felt like a failed experiment to me. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Convention_for_Climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Convention_for_Climat...
- lapcat 4y ago
  > If you select a truly random set of citizens to rule a country, there are no guarantees that you will get a representative sample of the citizenry. Not sure that's the goal as such. The goal is to have a selection system that's incorruptible. > Without any further selection, you will eventually (and sooner than you would expect) put terrible or incompetent people in power. Well, we have that already. I like the odds of random selection a lot better. With the current system, we're practically guaranteed of getting terrible or incompetent people in power. > I am French, and my country recently made a sortition experiment[1] 150 people seems pretty small. The US House of Representatives has over 500 members.