4 ms·

We shouldn't do this, because it's not democratic. First, people talking about the Athenian system - it was limited to "Free men" of Athens. The discrimination

We shouldn't do this, because it's not democratic. First, people talking about the Athenian system - it was limited to "Free men" of Athens. The discrimination might be something you feel we could counter today - all men and women could be selected - but what about convicted felons? Would they have a right to participate? Today, one is President of the USA (yes, I know, many think that's a sham, but legally he is). What about gay people? 50 years ago they almost certainly wouldn't have been allowed in. 150 years ago black people wouldn't. What about today's political third rail populations? Would communists or socialists or anarchists be allowed in? What about trans? Or people not born in the USA? There will always be a group some part of the spectrum wants to other and exclude, but today there is a democratic short circuit: an Austrian can be voted into being the Governor of California; a convicted felon can be voted into the position of President; a transgender woman can be voted into Congress by her Delaware constituents. Balloting - almost like voting today - will get systematic tinkering. Voting isn't perfect. Gerrymandering in the US is out of control and a more neutral system like the UK's needs creating, and yeah, donations are a mess... ... but choosing people at random is never really random, and there is no easy way to short circuit the orthodoxy. Minorities will get better representation at first, but they'll always be minorities and if the majority wants rid, they'll be locked out forever, just the same way women and slaves were in Athens.

thecrash 1y ago
Your concerns about a majority oppressing a minority are well-founded, but a system where people vote for career politicians don't seem to be moderating this problem - if anything it's exaggerating it. If you trust the general population to vote a marginalized person into office in order to push legislation which benefits that marginalized community, why wouldn't you trust the general population to pass that legislation directly? The only explanation I can think of is that you think that professional political representatives will have better ideas than the general population.
namlem 1y ago
Actually, it's elections that are fundamentally undemocratic. Democracy literally means "rule by the public", which elections are not. Elections are merely rule by elites which have the nominal consent of the public. In practice, this consent is mostly illusory, as voters have no incentive to spend hours of time and effort becoming well-informed given how dilute their individual votes are. So really, elections are rule by influential groups such as media institutions and organized voting blocs. You cite the UK as an example, but it's even less representative than the US. Parties often win majorities in parliament with only ~35% of the vote. Sortition meanwhile, takes a representative sample of the public and offers them the time and resources to carefully research and deliberate. It's much closer to the democratic ideal of direct rule by the demos.

thecrash 1y ago

Your concerns about a majority oppressing a minority are well-founded, but a system where people vote for career politicians don't seem to be moderating this problem - if anything it's exaggerating it. If you trust the general population to vote a marginalized person into office in order to push legislation which benefits that marginalized community, why wouldn't you trust the general population to pass that legislation directly? The only explanation I can think of is that you think that professional political representatives will have better ideas than the general population.

namlem 1y ago

Actually, it's elections that are fundamentally undemocratic. Democracy literally means "rule by the public", which elections are not. Elections are merely rule by elites which have the nominal consent of the public. In practice, this consent is mostly illusory, as voters have no incentive to spend hours of time and effort becoming well-informed given how dilute their individual votes are. So really, elections are rule by influential groups such as media institutions and organized voting blocs. You cite the UK as an example, but it's even less representative than the US. Parties often win majorities in parliament with only ~35% of the vote. Sortition meanwhile, takes a representative sample of the public and offers them the time and resources to carefully research and deliberate. It's much closer to the democratic ideal of direct rule by the demos.