3 ms·

I'm for the lottery model: * people get choosen at random for a term * decent, but not opulent compensation * obviously their choice to take the responsibility

I'm for the lottery model: * people get choosen at random for a term * decent, but not opulent compensation * obviously their choice to take the responsibility or deny it No bros, no parties. You have to bond with others and cope with the differences. (Or you don't get anything done.)

throwawayqqq11 1y ago
Id hold against this. Our world is getting more and more complex, we need expertise and far-sight, which is hard to come by with a lottery system. But i also understand the positives about a "citizen council" to break up syndicates. Maybe a mix of professional politicians, dedicating their life and getting compensated generously to bolster their indipendence and random rotating people with decent compensation and strong veto rights. Oh, and strong punishment, maybe revokation of certain rights, for misconducting officials.
- nonrandomstring 1y ago
  > our world is getting more and more complex, I'll counter that. The argument that complexity somehow itself justifies anything is a retreat to the folly of philosopher kings that Plato wrote an entire work against (you all have heard of "The Republic" - which careful, thorough readers of political science understand is a rejection of such simplicity. Indeed all philosopher kings, like Hitler, Mao, Stalin etc... fail horribly and cause misery and death) Furthermore, incumbent conditions foster complexity. Complexity is a symptom of political failure as much as a cause. > professional politicians We are surely seeing that these two words do not belong together in 21st century society. Most of our "politicians" are the antithesis of "professional", being vain, shallow, corrupt and immoral. It is surely clear that any randomly selected mature person could fare better, with minimal training/induction. With communication technology and "AI" as their new weapons, the present cadre of egotist politicians are an ever more dangerous breed. As the OP rightly says, that's because of a corrupt and captured mainstream and social media landscape that they learn to play rather than engage in listening, thinking and policy making. We will have no fair politics or justice until the "lies machine" is utterly destroyed along with those that ride on it. It's not that we haven't had lies-machines all along, but part of ur political/civic duty is to tear it down and counter it - something we have failed to do in the Internet age. Real experts, who are quiet civil servants and scientists are being attacked and displaced precisely because they are ones able to manage complexity and to communicate rationally. Almost all of these people, who form the real government, are driven by duty, or pursuit of truth, not base ambition. (some light edits)
  - throwawayqqq11 1y ago
    You are confusing some things, but your central point is still correct imo. Philosopher kings != democratic representants. Our societal complexity is a result of our cultural evolution and not caused by political failure. Professional politicans in the most basic sense know their craft and their field of expertise well enough to articulate legalese that achieves something intended and does not get ripped appart by courts or adused by others. Corruption, etc. is not a contradictor of professionalism. That said, why should randomly selected people be better and not get corrupted or misinformed? Even harder, why should they push urgently needed political change that impacts them and many other negatively (bad short term, good/needed long term)? Your central point of civic duty and democratic literacy falls on all of us, and right now, imo it requires long term thinking professionals to reform child care, education and as a 2nd order, our media and state. Right now, the populus is not able to drag itself out on its own.
    - nonrandomstring 1y ago
      > Philosopher kings != democratic representants. Professional politicans in the most basic sense know their craft and their field of expertise well Indeed. What we see though is a decline in the quality of representatives who are forced to skew toward immodest grandiosity and media theatrics instead of statecraft. They forced into a race to the bottom to present a veneer of "expertise" in everything, and pontificate confidently. > Our societal complexity is a result of our cultural evolution and not caused by political failure. I'll hold my position here; Culture and politics are not separate. If politics is the project to attain a "good life" (Aristotle), then managing complexity is part of that. There is no "perfect" society that is such a burden on its people it's unfit to live in (Tocqueville). > Corruption, etc. is not a contradictor of professionalism. Your pragmatic slant maybe, but it is not a definition of public office I recognise or respect. Integrity and professionalism are bedfellows in my take. > That said, why should randomly selected people be better and not get corrupted or misinformed? This is a very good question. The question, indeed. I don't think I've even thought about it, but simply started from the clear perspective (one that I've arrived at reluctantly through observing the world) that a random person could do no worse than those who seek power today. Maybe that's what the "anti-elite" populists wanted to achieve - a devaluation of politics itself. Ready to offer up their "technical solutions". > civic duty and democratic literacy falls on all of us, and right now, How do you think real professionals and experts, who are being excluded from the decision making arena, can be effective in exile? Working with these guys [0] recently I see the emerging idea of a functional government in exile ready to "restore from backups" after DOGE crash the system. [0] https://www.wethebuilders.org/ https://www.wethebuilders.org/
27thPW 1y ago
Sortition as a scheme fails to reckon with the nature of power and how individuals wield it. There is a reason you only ever see these kinds of citizen’s councils created when legislatures don’t want to deal with particular issues, and most of the time their final reports and recommendations are ignored. For sortition to work the bodies need to be vested with real power. Are we ready to hand over levers of a complex society to a representative sample of our peers? Or to demand that they be handed over?
- whatever1 1y ago
  Not everyone has to be selected by lottery, we can have a percentage of the total representatives. But I think it is important to have it, so that we break the barrier that political careerism poses. The set of people who are willing to run for office is a very limited set, and in the process of finding them we are filtering out a lot of signal. You keep ignoring the signal for too long, and it becomes a tsunami.
vacuity 1y ago
With some caveats, particularly ensuring a baseline level of competence, in a way that is somehow not overly discriminatory, I agree. The challenge then is to train the representatives sufficiently, but I think it could be done. And naturally I think there are significant benefits to this scheme, particularly having fresh faces (and ideas!) and not making the reelection-popularity/wealth-contest constantly reoccur.

throwawayqqq11 1y ago

Id hold against this. Our world is getting more and more complex, we need expertise and far-sight, which is hard to come by with a lottery system. But i also understand the positives about a "citizen council" to break up syndicates. Maybe a mix of professional politicians, dedicating their life and getting compensated generously to bolster their indipendence and random rotating people with decent compensation and strong veto rights. Oh, and strong punishment, maybe revokation of certain rights, for misconducting officials.

nonrandomstring 1y ago
> our world is getting more and more complex, I'll counter that. The argument that complexity somehow itself justifies anything is a retreat to the folly of philosopher kings that Plato wrote an entire work against (you all have heard of "The Republic" - which careful, thorough readers of political science understand is a rejection of such simplicity. Indeed all philosopher kings, like Hitler, Mao, Stalin etc... fail horribly and cause misery and death) Furthermore, incumbent conditions foster complexity. Complexity is a symptom of political failure as much as a cause. > professional politicians We are surely seeing that these two words do not belong together in 21st century society. Most of our "politicians" are the antithesis of "professional", being vain, shallow, corrupt and immoral. It is surely clear that any randomly selected mature person could fare better, with minimal training/induction. With communication technology and "AI" as their new weapons, the present cadre of egotist politicians are an ever more dangerous breed. As the OP rightly says, that's because of a corrupt and captured mainstream and social media landscape that they learn to play rather than engage in listening, thinking and policy making. We will have no fair politics or justice until the "lies machine" is utterly destroyed along with those that ride on it. It's not that we haven't had lies-machines all along, but part of ur political/civic duty is to tear it down and counter it - something we have failed to do in the Internet age. Real experts, who are quiet civil servants and scientists are being attacked and displaced precisely because they are ones able to manage complexity and to communicate rationally. Almost all of these people, who form the real government, are driven by duty, or pursuit of truth, not base ambition. (some light edits)
- throwawayqqq11 1y ago
  You are confusing some things, but your central point is still correct imo. Philosopher kings != democratic representants. Our societal complexity is a result of our cultural evolution and not caused by political failure. Professional politicans in the most basic sense know their craft and their field of expertise well enough to articulate legalese that achieves something intended and does not get ripped appart by courts or adused by others. Corruption, etc. is not a contradictor of professionalism. That said, why should randomly selected people be better and not get corrupted or misinformed? Even harder, why should they push urgently needed political change that impacts them and many other negatively (bad short term, good/needed long term)? Your central point of civic duty and democratic literacy falls on all of us, and right now, imo it requires long term thinking professionals to reform child care, education and as a 2nd order, our media and state. Right now, the populus is not able to drag itself out on its own.
  - nonrandomstring 1y ago
    > Philosopher kings != democratic representants. Professional politicans in the most basic sense know their craft and their field of expertise well Indeed. What we see though is a decline in the quality of representatives who are forced to skew toward immodest grandiosity and media theatrics instead of statecraft. They forced into a race to the bottom to present a veneer of "expertise" in everything, and pontificate confidently. > Our societal complexity is a result of our cultural evolution and not caused by political failure. I'll hold my position here; Culture and politics are not separate. If politics is the project to attain a "good life" (Aristotle), then managing complexity is part of that. There is no "perfect" society that is such a burden on its people it's unfit to live in (Tocqueville). > Corruption, etc. is not a contradictor of professionalism. Your pragmatic slant maybe, but it is not a definition of public office I recognise or respect. Integrity and professionalism are bedfellows in my take. > That said, why should randomly selected people be better and not get corrupted or misinformed? This is a very good question. The question, indeed. I don't think I've even thought about it, but simply started from the clear perspective (one that I've arrived at reluctantly through observing the world) that a random person could do no worse than those who seek power today. Maybe that's what the "anti-elite" populists wanted to achieve - a devaluation of politics itself. Ready to offer up their "technical solutions". > civic duty and democratic literacy falls on all of us, and right now, How do you think real professionals and experts, who are being excluded from the decision making arena, can be effective in exile? Working with these guys [0] recently I see the emerging idea of a functional government in exile ready to "restore from backups" after DOGE crash the system. [0] https://www.wethebuilders.org/ https://www.wethebuilders.org/

27thPW 1y ago

Sortition as a scheme fails to reckon with the nature of power and how individuals wield it. There is a reason you only ever see these kinds of citizen’s councils created when legislatures don’t want to deal with particular issues, and most of the time their final reports and recommendations are ignored. For sortition to work the bodies need to be vested with real power. Are we ready to hand over levers of a complex society to a representative sample of our peers? Or to demand that they be handed over?

whatever1 1y ago
Not everyone has to be selected by lottery, we can have a percentage of the total representatives. But I think it is important to have it, so that we break the barrier that political careerism poses. The set of people who are willing to run for office is a very limited set, and in the process of finding them we are filtering out a lot of signal. You keep ignoring the signal for too long, and it becomes a tsunami.

vacuity 1y ago

With some caveats, particularly ensuring a baseline level of competence, in a way that is somehow not overly discriminatory, I agree. The challenge then is to train the representatives sufficiently, but I think it could be done. And naturally I think there are significant benefits to this scheme, particularly having fresh faces (and ideas!) and not making the reelection-popularity/wealth-contest constantly reoccur.