19 ms·

Although I'm all for exploring different avenues of democratic decision making and liquid democracy is definitely something I'm interested in and so this articl

Although I'm all for exploring different avenues of democratic decision making and liquid democracy is definitely something I'm interested in and so this article is really valuable information; for a while now I've been much more interested in forms of participation that require more from it's participants and not less. I think for this reason I'm much more interested in the experiments done with citizens assemblies and minipublics. They seem to be much more better suited for combating misinformation as well as most of the perverse incentives of traditional politics, the latter being problems that wouldn't go away with delegation as I would imagine most people would end up delegating because it's so similar to our current form of participation which is representative voting. To me, one of the biggest issues right now in politics is that politicians have pretty much stopped trying to build a country together as much just trying to keep things going in ways that don't affect them too much. As in, people from both parties have very similar interests: keep themselves in power. This doesn't seem to lead to good decisions being made, but when you have referendums that is top down direct democracy it seems to be, now a days, a process that can be very easily manipulated to spread misinformation. We can look at the Colombian referendum for peace, brexit and the recent Chilean referendum for a new constitution. With this in mind, it seems to me like we need designs that are a bit more complex and I do think citizens assemblies fit the bill. I encourage anyone that's interested to take a look at Helene Landemore's Open Democracy.

hash872 4y ago
The big problem with sortition (which Landemore appears to be arguing for) is that it's uh non-democratic. Instead of allowing citizens to vote for their representatives, you're literally removing the fundamental basis of democracy and doing something else entirely. I'm sure neither the author nor you see that as a stepping stone to authoritarianism, but it kind of is. I'd be open to exploring citizens assemblies that are democratically elected & assembled for a set period of time to tackle one specific issue. But they have to be voted in, random sortition is unacceptable
- jerojero 4y ago
  That's not really something I agree with? I find sortition to be one of the most democratic form of participation. Modern political systems in the west, that is to say, liberal democracy through representative voting is entirely oligarchical. Look at parliaments all over the world and how they correlate with the population as whole in terms of socioeconomic indicators, race, gender, etc. They are not representative at all of who makes up the population but instead they represent who the population believes and who the system allows to be capable of making decisions. And this final part is what I really want to put emphasis on: who makes the actual decisions? I think here we might have different views but to me, who makes the decisions is the most important even more important than making the optimal decisions. I believe a system is more democratic if the decisions are being made by people who are actually, materially, involved in the consequences of said decisions. And with that in mind, I think sortition is indeed much more democratic than voting because in sortition you get a group of people that are truly, socially, economically, gender-wise, race-wise, representative of the wider population. Not only that but in sortition everyone has the same chance of being able to access power, whereas in voting only those that are appealing to big demographics will be. I mean, it is not a coincidence that politicians tend to be extroverted and charismatic... but what about people who are shy and introverted? Is the only method of participation for them the vote? So I guess in a few words: I believe sortition is more democratic because everyone gets the same chance to do active participation, rather than most people simply being able to vote for the few people who actually have the chance to debate, review and make decisions. I really encourage you to read maybe Camila Vergara's book "Systemic Corruption" if you have a chance to get it which might change your perspective in terms of sortition and voting. Though in fairness, she suggests a system that's based on a network of local assemblies; but also argues in favor of sortition for certain position (as opposed to voting).
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    The problem with sortition is the problem of people using various means to opt out of jury duty. Jury duty, which typically lasts less than a week, still gets a variety of people opting out. Sortition for decision making would have far more people opting out, or would have to resort to draconian methods to prevent people opting out. > "I believe a system is more democratic if the decisions are being made by people who are actually, materially, involved in the consequences of said decisions." I believe a system is typically better if this is the case. Things can be done to bias elected decision makers toward behaving as if they are consequentially subject to the decisions. Term limits is one idea, increasing the number of members of the legislative bodies is another.
- User23 4y ago
  How can sortition be undemocratic when it was the basis of the Athenian democracy, from which we get the word?
panick21_ 4y ago
> This doesn't seem to lead to good decisions being made, but when you have referendums that is top down direct democracy it seems to be, now a days, a process that can be very easily manipulated to spread misinformation. This is a somewhat false assumption. Yes people spread misinformation. But here is the thing, the opposition also spreads misinformation. And lots of people also spread good information, or what they consider good information. So in reality its anything but 'easy' to manipulate voting to the outcome you want. Switzerland has been the most direct democracy for 200 years and so far we have no collapsed because of the evil demon of misinformation. There are many easy ways prevent misinformation from being all that effective. In Switzerland, when you get a popular vote, it comes with a little bit of information from the state and each party can basically write their position on the paper. If you are not interested in the issue or becoming an expert, you can simply trust in the party you are a member of or partial to and vote as they do. People also need to be somewhat used to direct democracy and have a real stake, voting on issues need to be common thing. If you have govenrment that is 99% a representative democracy and then once every so often something actually goes before the population you are gone get strange outcomes. You also need to control when and how things even get to point where people can vote on things and what their options are. Should you only vote for 2 options or should a range of options be presented.
- jerojero 4y ago
  Yes, I think Switzerland does a very good job with their referendums. But Switzerland has a history of democratic and political participation that most countries do not have. Switzerland's politics is extremely complex and it has many, many moving parts. To begin with, it's very decentralized with every canton having their own constitution and their own way of doing things; there is a canton that still passes laws by people raising their hands in the town plaza. What you say is very important, in Switzerland the government actually makes a very important effort in being sort of the arbiter of truth and that's definitely something that governments that have undergone the referendums I mentioned didn't really do very well at all. I'm really not saying referendums are bad, I think they can be bad if they're not done carefully and they're really not done carefully in most cases and so I believe this kind of democracy to be much more fragile than one that is sortition based. Though obviously, I think a full system incorporates many elements and referendums are a part of it; in Ireland for example, when they've had big referendums (such as abortion and gay marriage which were very divisive issues) they used mini publics to complement the range of information that was offered, they held an sortition based representative assembly that discussed the issue thoroughly and then gave an official resolution on the matter. And research actually indicates that most people that voted in the referendum were aware of the assembly and its conclusion. That's very good. I'm very much for referendums if they're done carefully and with proper support from the state. But I think sortition is a much cleaner way to solve most problems with modern politics, though I am quite the optimistic person! Anyway given that you're in Switzerland you should see what they've proposed for the canton of Vaud with regards to these matters.

hash872 4y ago

The big problem with sortition (which Landemore appears to be arguing for) is that it's uh non-democratic. Instead of allowing citizens to vote for their representatives, you're literally removing the fundamental basis of democracy and doing something else entirely. I'm sure neither the author nor you see that as a stepping stone to authoritarianism, but it kind of is. I'd be open to exploring citizens assemblies that are democratically elected & assembled for a set period of time to tackle one specific issue. But they have to be voted in, random sortition is unacceptable

jerojero 4y ago
That's not really something I agree with? I find sortition to be one of the most democratic form of participation. Modern political systems in the west, that is to say, liberal democracy through representative voting is entirely oligarchical. Look at parliaments all over the world and how they correlate with the population as whole in terms of socioeconomic indicators, race, gender, etc. They are not representative at all of who makes up the population but instead they represent who the population believes and who the system allows to be capable of making decisions. And this final part is what I really want to put emphasis on: who makes the actual decisions? I think here we might have different views but to me, who makes the decisions is the most important even more important than making the optimal decisions. I believe a system is more democratic if the decisions are being made by people who are actually, materially, involved in the consequences of said decisions. And with that in mind, I think sortition is indeed much more democratic than voting because in sortition you get a group of people that are truly, socially, economically, gender-wise, race-wise, representative of the wider population. Not only that but in sortition everyone has the same chance of being able to access power, whereas in voting only those that are appealing to big demographics will be. I mean, it is not a coincidence that politicians tend to be extroverted and charismatic... but what about people who are shy and introverted? Is the only method of participation for them the vote? So I guess in a few words: I believe sortition is more democratic because everyone gets the same chance to do active participation, rather than most people simply being able to vote for the few people who actually have the chance to debate, review and make decisions. I really encourage you to read maybe Camila Vergara's book "Systemic Corruption" if you have a chance to get it which might change your perspective in terms of sortition and voting. Though in fairness, she suggests a system that's based on a network of local assemblies; but also argues in favor of sortition for certain position (as opposed to voting).
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  The problem with sortition is the problem of people using various means to opt out of jury duty. Jury duty, which typically lasts less than a week, still gets a variety of people opting out. Sortition for decision making would have far more people opting out, or would have to resort to draconian methods to prevent people opting out. > "I believe a system is more democratic if the decisions are being made by people who are actually, materially, involved in the consequences of said decisions." I believe a system is typically better if this is the case. Things can be done to bias elected decision makers toward behaving as if they are consequentially subject to the decisions. Term limits is one idea, increasing the number of members of the legislative bodies is another.
User23 4y ago
How can sortition be undemocratic when it was the basis of the Athenian democracy, from which we get the word?

panick21_ 4y ago

> This doesn't seem to lead to good decisions being made, but when you have referendums that is top down direct democracy it seems to be, now a days, a process that can be very easily manipulated to spread misinformation. This is a somewhat false assumption. Yes people spread misinformation. But here is the thing, the opposition also spreads misinformation. And lots of people also spread good information, or what they consider good information. So in reality its anything but 'easy' to manipulate voting to the outcome you want. Switzerland has been the most direct democracy for 200 years and so far we have no collapsed because of the evil demon of misinformation. There are many easy ways prevent misinformation from being all that effective. In Switzerland, when you get a popular vote, it comes with a little bit of information from the state and each party can basically write their position on the paper. If you are not interested in the issue or becoming an expert, you can simply trust in the party you are a member of or partial to and vote as they do. People also need to be somewhat used to direct democracy and have a real stake, voting on issues need to be common thing. If you have govenrment that is 99% a representative democracy and then once every so often something actually goes before the population you are gone get strange outcomes. You also need to control when and how things even get to point where people can vote on things and what their options are. Should you only vote for 2 options or should a range of options be presented.

jerojero 4y ago
Yes, I think Switzerland does a very good job with their referendums. But Switzerland has a history of democratic and political participation that most countries do not have. Switzerland's politics is extremely complex and it has many, many moving parts. To begin with, it's very decentralized with every canton having their own constitution and their own way of doing things; there is a canton that still passes laws by people raising their hands in the town plaza. What you say is very important, in Switzerland the government actually makes a very important effort in being sort of the arbiter of truth and that's definitely something that governments that have undergone the referendums I mentioned didn't really do very well at all. I'm really not saying referendums are bad, I think they can be bad if they're not done carefully and they're really not done carefully in most cases and so I believe this kind of democracy to be much more fragile than one that is sortition based. Though obviously, I think a full system incorporates many elements and referendums are a part of it; in Ireland for example, when they've had big referendums (such as abortion and gay marriage which were very divisive issues) they used mini publics to complement the range of information that was offered, they held an sortition based representative assembly that discussed the issue thoroughly and then gave an official resolution on the matter. And research actually indicates that most people that voted in the referendum were aware of the assembly and its conclusion. That's very good. I'm very much for referendums if they're done carefully and with proper support from the state. But I think sortition is a much cleaner way to solve most problems with modern politics, though I am quite the optimistic person! Anyway given that you're in Switzerland you should see what they've proposed for the canton of Vaud with regards to these matters.