4 ms·

Why not both? The selection of the Venetian Doge had alternating rounds of election and sortition. Apparently this served to ward off power hungry egomaniacs. C

• chr15m 1y ago
  It was like that for 500 years: > New regulations for the elections of the doge introduced in 1268 remained in force until the end of the republic in 1797. Their intention was to minimize the influence of individual great families, and this was effected by a complex electoral machinery. Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced by lot to nine; the nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve, who chose twenty-five. The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine, and the nine elected forty-five. These forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and the eleven finally chose the forty-one who elected the doge.[31] > --wikipedia
  • aeontech 1y ago
    Wow, that is a brilliant approach. Thank you for sharing. In the US we seem to be stuck in a local maximum (or local minimum) with little chance of changes to the existing system - I wonder what kind of solutions exist to transform an entrenched institutional process, barring drastic upheaval...
• namlem 1y ago
  Yep! I actually wrote a piece about how the Venetian system might be adapted for the modern day: https://open.substack.com/pub/unfacts/p/the-case-for-a-technocratic-doge https://open.substack.com/pub/unfacts/p/the-case-for-a-techn...