3 ms·

Iirc, the electoral college and representatives were put in place because the [rich] founders knew the Demos can not be trusted to fairly govern itself. Electio

Iirc, the electoral college and representatives were put in place because the [rich] founders knew the Demos can not be trusted to fairly govern itself. Election by lottery is not better because it's the same people with the same foibles. When the Greeks did sortition, it wasn't perfect either. Laws ended up favoring the richest landowners, and the richest landowners tended to have a higher representation (in the boule anyway). They tried various means to engineer the problems away, but they persisted. This is because it's nigh-impossible to prevent human beings from figuring out a way to exploit a system when they are committed to the task. Another way to have a superior political body is to make it superior and hold it to a standard. Rather than select average people, there should be basic requirements of intelligence, ethics, acts of good will, and the abandonment of luxuries, rewards and favors, in exchange for the support of the state. The state should support the education of the populous toward this end. In addition, the judgment over matters of serious concern should be presided over by experts. No decision of serious concern should be made without a meta-study, to root out bias and find the best possible solution. Basically, we should hold ourselves and our political process to the highest standards, rather than the easiest ones. Let the noblest and wisest lead us in a structure designed for reason and fairness.

lapcat 4y ago
> Basically, we should hold ourselves and our political process to the highest standards, rather than the easiest ones. It sounds like you're describing Plato's philosopher kings. A key component of both sortition and Plato's Republic is that they're selecting leaders who aren't actively seeking power, in contrast to elections. (According to Plato, philosophers seek truth, not power, and must be forced to rule for the benefit of the community.)
- throwawaaarrgh 4y ago
  More like representative egalitarian scientist philosophers. They would not have total power, but they would have large influence. Think of an alternative governmental body, like the house and senate. You could even still have sortition as a separate body (a la Assembly). But this wise body would determine what was technically and logistically the best outcome, rather than purely moral. You could reject what the wise impartial person found through analysis, but it would be a difficult argument, because everyone would trust in impartiality and correctness, the same way we do in science. We could prefer what the whole body agreed upon, as it would be the most widely accepted scientific findings.
origin_path 4y ago
"In addition, the judgment over matters of serious concern should be presided over by experts. No decision of serious concern should be made without a meta-study, to root out bias and find the best possible solution." That's the system we have now and it fails all the time, because the "experts" would rather give any answer than no answer, even if their data or understanding is insufficient to yield an accurate prediction.

lapcat 4y ago

> Basically, we should hold ourselves and our political process to the highest standards, rather than the easiest ones. It sounds like you're describing Plato's philosopher kings. A key component of both sortition and Plato's Republic is that they're selecting leaders who aren't actively seeking power, in contrast to elections. (According to Plato, philosophers seek truth, not power, and must be forced to rule for the benefit of the community.)

throwawaaarrgh 4y ago
More like representative egalitarian scientist philosophers. They would not have total power, but they would have large influence. Think of an alternative governmental body, like the house and senate. You could even still have sortition as a separate body (a la Assembly). But this wise body would determine what was technically and logistically the best outcome, rather than purely moral. You could reject what the wise impartial person found through analysis, but it would be a difficult argument, because everyone would trust in impartiality and correctness, the same way we do in science. We could prefer what the whole body agreed upon, as it would be the most widely accepted scientific findings.

origin_path 4y ago

"In addition, the judgment over matters of serious concern should be presided over by experts. No decision of serious concern should be made without a meta-study, to root out bias and find the best possible solution." That's the system we have now and it fails all the time, because the "experts" would rather give any answer than no answer, even if their data or understanding is insufficient to yield an accurate prediction.