Belgian writer David van Reybrouck has written a very interesting book on this topic: Against elections. https://www.amazon.com/Against-Elections-David-Van-Reybrouck...
We Should Let a Lottery Decide Our Government
31–40 of 88 posts
Re: We Should Let a Lottery Decide Our Government
#32What a terrible idea. Being a representative isn't just about beliefs, it requires expertise in statecraft. There are so many better ways to solve the stated problem.
> Being a representative isn't just about beliefs, it requires expertise in statecraft.
I suspect you don't live in the United States - or have never watched these representatives in action in their various sessions and places of work, because ... elections are a beauty contest that are simply a reflection of a candidate's ability to campaign, and have nothing to do with the actual ability of the representative to capably do their job.
Re: We Should Let a Lottery Decide Our Government
#33What a terrible idea. Being a representative isn't just about beliefs, it requires expertise in statecraft. There are so many better ways to solve the stated problem.
Expertise in statecraft sounds a lot like ‘skill in owning slaves’. Statehood is not a self-evident state
Re: We Should Let a Lottery Decide Our Government
#34I like this idea, but I think that the biggest risk would be in the legal assistants needed to navigate the sea of bureaucracy that legislative work usually needs. The lottery-selected citizens would come and go, but the assistant would probably remain in office for several “elections”. The selected citizens would probably be oblivious to what’s currently going on and the assistants would have incentives to influence…
That's a common argument against term limits: by shifting the burden of institutional memory even farther away from the elected officials, you're further empowering the bureaucrats.
Re: We Should Let a Lottery Decide Our Government
#35Maybe. I am bothered that there's an unofficial pre-election in the US that is called campaign financing. It skews candidates towards the wealthy, corporate backed, or populist. If elections were publicly financed somehow, then perhaps we'd see a more representative selection. At least they wouldn't be beholden to donors as often.
The counterintuitive solution is to get rid of campaign finance restrictions.
If money is easier to get, candidates will need to "pay" less for it in favors.
To understand the dynamics here, the key fact is that additional money only helps a campaign up until it has enough to get its message to the voters. More money after that doesn't impact the result.
Re: We Should Let a Lottery Decide Our Government
#36I could see scaling being a problem.
For this to work I think you would need enough representatives that different segments of the society would consistently have their concerns represented. However, I'm not sure that would be viable with a country as large and diverse as the US.
The lottery system would also likely work best when the representatives knew that they would be held accountable socially for their actions. However, that likely requires a more localized society, greater shared worldview, and less inequality that we currently have in America.
I could see a lottery system working at the state or local level. However, it seems like most of the issues that society is currently facing (climate change, inequality, etc.) are ones that can only be solved at a national level.
Re: We Should Let a Lottery Decide Our Government
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There is something to be said about policies put forward by sophisticated and educated elites. Sounds more like a meritocracy, but then politics has taught us that many labels can fit depending upon your initial position and posture in much the same way that idea's in the middle can from the left appear right-wing and equally upon the right, appear left-wing. Hence labeling and focusing upon those labels whilst igno…
Yeah, but we can’t even figure out how to have reliable elections without using paper ballots. I don’t think we are mature enough to have an unbiased merit-based selection of individuals to rule us all. Who sets the merit parameters? Who will test candidates?
Oh, I totally agree. I was just showing how things can have many labels and with that, effect how the content is interpreted with focus upon the label over the content.
In some ways we have a level of meritocracy in that we set a minimum level of IQ and ethical standard to be allowed to vote, prisoners don't vote (most countries I'm aware of at least, though I'm sure as with everything that exceptions exist). Just that some want to raise and add to those merits. Which would be sad and equally could be labeled a form of dictatorship and highlights again, how something is labeled, defines the direction of debate.
For me, a more engaged and granualar system of say is what is needed. Today we have a token X upon a limited selection, with no garantee's that those options can or will do what they said at the time you placed your token X, once every 4-5 years.
Voting is stuck in the medieval times, when it could take months to a bit of paper across the country and people could just about manage an X as their writing skills. Politics needs to evolve. But if I was to change one single thing, it would be to remove the party system myself. All representatives would be standing to represent who elected them and speak for them over party loyalty. That would see a fairer and more insightful democracy play out. But that would be a start. A more granular say is needed in our voting systems and that say needs to be more frequent.
Re: We Should Let a Lottery Decide Our Government
#38Maybe. I am bothered that there's an unofficial pre-election in the US that is called campaign financing. It skews candidates towards the wealthy, corporate backed, or populist. If elections were publicly financed somehow, then perhaps we'd see a more representative selection. At least they wouldn't be beholden to donors as often.
The counterintuitive solution is to get rid of campaign finance restrictions. If money is easier to get, candidates will need to "pay" less for it in favors. To understand the dynamics here, the key fact is that additional money only helps a campaign up until it has enough to get its message to the voters. More money after that doesn't impact the result.
Aren't we trying that already? Citizens United dramatically loosened the rules on campaign finance.
Re: We Should Let a Lottery Decide Our Government
#39Maybe. I am bothered that there's an unofficial pre-election in the US that is called campaign financing. It skews candidates towards the wealthy, corporate backed, or populist. If elections were publicly financed somehow, then perhaps we'd see a more representative selection. At least they wouldn't be beholden to donors as often.
The counterintuitive solution is to get rid of campaign finance restrictions. If money is easier to get, candidates will need to "pay" less for it in favors. To understand the dynamics here, the key fact is that additional money only helps a campaign up until it has enough to get its message to the voters. More money after that doesn't impact the result.
How about we instead consider distancing the human political actors from direct contact with temptation? Corruption is an integral part of all political systems and ultimately festers until inevitable failure and restart. Can’t we start to consider open source, programmatic execution of popularly derived decisions?
Re: We Should Let a Lottery Decide Our Government
#40If we had a more granular democratic say that was counted above and beyond a token X in a limited choice of option every 4-5 years with those options promises being no guarantee that what was on the tin is what you will get. Then maybe we would have more harmony and progress. Imagine if you will that every voter had the ability to submit their idea's for other voters to support/debate and the top ones go onto being v…
The lottery system has several variants to take that in consideration.
In one of them, everybody votes for x (e.g: 3) people around them. Then you remove the top 10% to avoid people campaigning, and the bottom 10% to avoid psychopathic candidates.
The ones that remain can then register to the lottery.
In some variants, you have limits to the wealth you have, jobs you hold, geographic min and max, number of times you can try, etc.
The lottery concept is not about embracing chaos, but smoothing the odds, playing with the Gauss curve in our favor, limiting the network+money factor and avoiding turning politics into a job.