3 ms·

While random choice has some merit, it ignores some basic requirements of legislation: Legislation is interfacing with the executive and judicial branches (and

While random choice has some merit, it ignores some basic requirements of legislation: Legislation is interfacing with the executive and judicial branches (and you definitely don't want to randomly select your judges and governors). This interface works through legalese and other techniques. So someone with a certain experience or training in these techniques will be able to write better laws. Also, legislation necessarily works through specialization and work in committees. That's another thing people can learn to do better. That's where political parties are actually useful. Finally, this whole thing reeks of identity politics. Representation as a proxy of good decision making or even just good intent. But think about what this would do to minorities. It would be quite unlikely to chose, e.g., transsexuals or people with rare illnesses. Also, people have many different identies at the same time but but cannot represent them all equally well, anyways. So some aspects of society wouldn't be represented at all during a legislative period because everyone is supposed to represent their own identities, not someone else's. So unless we create a legislative assembly that's so large that it borders on direct democracy, I don't see the benefit. And in that case, let's just have direct democracy. If necessary with a legal requirement to vote.

lapcat 4y ago
> Legislation is interfacing with the executive and judicial branches Why do you assume there would be 3 branches of government like the current system? As the article discusses, the founders of the US divided the government in order to dilute democracy and maintain the power of the economic elite.
shkkmo 4y ago
> So someone with a certain experience or training in these techniques will be able to write better laws. Also, legislation necessarily works through specialization and work in committees. Lawmakers today rarely write the legislation they vote on. They have support staff and experts who assist them in drafting legislation. Nothing prevents providing similar infrastructure to representatives selected by sortition rather than elections. > Finally, this whole thing reeks of identity politics. Representation as a proxy of good decision making or even just good intent. But think about what this would do to minorities. It would be quite unlikely to chose, e.g., transsexuals or people with rare illnesses. Um... What? Minorities would unequivocally be better represented under sortition than under elections. Poor people would be better represented, women would be better represented, young people would be better represented. The primary group that would loser it's massive overrepresentation is the old rich white lawyers who dominate our current house and senate. Your argument here makes no sense.

lapcat 4y ago

> Legislation is interfacing with the executive and judicial branches Why do you assume there would be 3 branches of government like the current system? As the article discusses, the founders of the US divided the government in order to dilute democracy and maintain the power of the economic elite.

shkkmo 4y ago

> So someone with a certain experience or training in these techniques will be able to write better laws. Also, legislation necessarily works through specialization and work in committees. Lawmakers today rarely write the legislation they vote on. They have support staff and experts who assist them in drafting legislation. Nothing prevents providing similar infrastructure to representatives selected by sortition rather than elections. > Finally, this whole thing reeks of identity politics. Representation as a proxy of good decision making or even just good intent. But think about what this would do to minorities. It would be quite unlikely to chose, e.g., transsexuals or people with rare illnesses. Um... What? Minorities would unequivocally be better represented under sortition than under elections. Poor people would be better represented, women would be better represented, young people would be better represented. The primary group that would loser it's massive overrepresentation is the old rich white lawyers who dominate our current house and senate. Your argument here makes no sense.