3 ms·
Haha, mine too. It would probably make sense to start with a new new "house" or something. Might even make sense to have some quotas (at least 50% women etc.)
by k__ 1y ago
Haha, mine too.
It would probably make sense to start with a new new "house" or something.
Might even make sense to have some quotas (at least 50% women etc.), so the whole things doesn't have to get to Chinese government size to reflect the populus.
That or pepple would have to be replaced with high frequency
- bilbo0s 1y agoIf it's truly random, it should already be 50-52% female. If it comes out 10% female every sortition cohort, you know some funny business is going on.
- k__ 1y agoIsn't this a question of how many people you select?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bilbo0s 1y agoSure. My point is that so is the percentage of males in any sortition cohort. Therefore, a consistent female census of 10% or less in all sortition cohorts, would be as unlikely as a consistent male census of 10% or less in all sortition cohorts. In other words, having one sortition cohort result in 10% males would not be suspicious. Having every sortition cohort result in 10% males would be suspicious in the extreme. So much so that we should start looking for whoever is "putting their finger on the scale" so to speak.
- breuleux 1y agoIf the sample size is low, it could come out at 10% purely at random, but that is still likely to undermine confidence in the system (in the immediate). Pragmatically, I think it makes sense to have quotas for a few protected classes, to maximize perception of fairness.