Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The election of the doge

generalist.academy

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 99 posts

Re: The election of the doge

#11

Post by magicsmoke »

keeganpoppen wrote: post #8
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

This is fascinating. One thing that would be awesome to try would be doing this with the House of Representatives in the US. Basically, one registered voter would be randomly chosen from each congressional district. They would be obligated to serve for the 2 year term and paid the current salary of a member of Congress ($174,000/year). They would never be part of the lottery again after 1 term. I think this could hav…

i don't mean to be curt, but that sounds awful. in what sort of ideal world would any leader of anything be chosen this way? this is just some post-post-modern madness. you know what another equally reliable, and arguably more palatable, way to ensure 0 impact of campaign contributions? anarchy. just complete, absolute Hobbesian state of nature. at least then we would pick leaders that would help us survive... random…

"The Great Council of Venice was a large legislative body made up of a relatively small number of noble families"

So in Venice's case, it wasn't so much randomly selecting representatives from all its citizens as it was selecting from already wealthy and influential persons, on the assumption that they were somewhat competent if they could amass and manage their existing power.

Re: The election of the doge

#12

Post by tptacek »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

This is fascinating. One thing that would be awesome to try would be doing this with the House of Representatives in the US. Basically, one registered voter would be randomly chosen from each congressional district. They would be obligated to serve for the 2 year term and paid the current salary of a member of Congress ($174,000/year). They would never be part of the lottery again after 1 term. I think this could hav…

Sortition is a great way to make everybody in the country feel like they have absolutely no stake in or influence over the federal government, since the odds of any one person being chosen are infinitesimal --- lower than those of being struck by lightning.

Re: The election of the doge

#13

Post by Armisael16 »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

This is fascinating. One thing that would be awesome to try would be doing this with the House of Representatives in the US. Basically, one registered voter would be randomly chosen from each congressional district. They would be obligated to serve for the 2 year term and paid the current salary of a member of Congress ($174,000/year). They would never be part of the lottery again after 1 term. I think this could hav…

The problem with this technique is that it takes most representatives several years to learn the mechanics of governing effectively - how to laws without unintentional loopholes, what the other relevant laws are, details of particular fields of interest (eg, space policy).

The legislature has to have these details if it’s going to do anything at all. If the representatives don’t have that knowledge they’ll get it from somewhere else. That usually means lobbyists, since they’re (representing) the experts in the field.

Re: The election of the doge

#14

Post by blululu »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

This is fascinating. One thing that would be awesome to try would be doing this with the House of Representatives in the US. Basically, one registered voter would be randomly chosen from each congressional district. They would be obligated to serve for the 2 year term and paid the current salary of a member of Congress ($174,000/year). They would never be part of the lottery again after 1 term. I think this could hav…

In general I like the idea of random sampling an an efficient means of democratic process. The trouble is that democracy is better at deliberating than promulgating laws. I think a better approach would be to have elected representatives craft legislation in congressional committees, and then allow randomly selected citizen committees (a la jury duty) to vote and deliberate on behalf of their district.

Re: The election of the doge

#15

Post by cbsks »

gen220 wrote: post #3

It’s fascinating how random selection plays an essential role in the election. The final phase’s selection isn’t random, but many intermediary phases are. I think randomness is an underrated tool for introducing a sense of “fairness” to problems with strange power dynamics: where everyone is interested in a fair outcome, but the best outcome for any individual causes some harm to the group. Salary negotiation is one…

> Imagine haggling over the range start or range size, and then picking your salary from a uniform distribution contained by that range.

I think that it’s important that the last step is not random. I can’t imagine the job applicant would be happy with their salary being chosen randomly.

Re: The election of the doge

#16

Post by elihu »

keeganpoppen wrote: post #8
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

This is fascinating. One thing that would be awesome to try would be doing this with the House of Representatives in the US. Basically, one registered voter would be randomly chosen from each congressional district. They would be obligated to serve for the 2 year term and paid the current salary of a member of Congress ($174,000/year). They would never be part of the lottery again after 1 term. I think this could hav…

i don't mean to be curt, but that sounds awful. in what sort of ideal world would any leader of anything be chosen this way? this is just some post-post-modern madness. you know what another equally reliable, and arguably more palatable, way to ensure 0 impact of campaign contributions? anarchy. just complete, absolute Hobbesian state of nature. at least then we would pick leaders that would help us survive... random…

Members of the House of Representatives aren't really leaders in the sense of having the authority to decide things on their own. I think randomly-chosen representatives could be a workable solution. It might be awful in some ways, but the House would then be a reasonably accurate representation of the full population. And if they did anything nonsensical, there's still the Senate which would presumably still be elected in the usual way.

I'll bet people would take more interest the quality of public education for the average citizen, at least.

Re: The election of the doge

#17

Post by keeganpoppen »

magicsmoke wrote: post #11
keeganpoppen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't mean to be curt, but that sounds awful. in what sort of ideal world would any leader of anything be chosen this way? this is just some post-post-modern madness. you know what another equally reliable, and arguably more palatable, way to ensure 0 impact of campaign contributions? anarchy. just complete, absolute Hobbesian state of nature. at least then we would pick leaders that would help us survive... random…

"The Great Council of Venice was a large legislative body made up of a relatively small number of noble families" So in Venice's case, it wasn't so much randomly selecting representatives from all its citizens as it was selecting from already wealthy and influential persons, on the assumption that they were somewhat competent if they could amass and manage their existing power.

being groomed your whole life to take your father's place is totally different from being randomly forced to be a member of a legislative body, though... even if you are unremarkable, at least you'd learn enough to "know the language" from being in that world your whole life. maybe. also, you could at least argue that nobility have the most "skin in the game" when it comes to decisions about the realm. (not that that justifies that sort of system-- i think everyone makes out a lot better now than they did then)

Re: The election of the doge

#18

Post by keeganpoppen »

elihu wrote: post #16
keeganpoppen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't mean to be curt, but that sounds awful. in what sort of ideal world would any leader of anything be chosen this way? this is just some post-post-modern madness. you know what another equally reliable, and arguably more palatable, way to ensure 0 impact of campaign contributions? anarchy. just complete, absolute Hobbesian state of nature. at least then we would pick leaders that would help us survive... random…

Members of the House of Representatives aren't really leaders in the sense of having the authority to decide things on their own. I think randomly-chosen representatives could be a workable solution. It might be awful in some ways, but the House would then be a reasonably accurate representation of the full population. And if they did anything nonsensical, there's still the Senate which would presumably still be elec…

if by quality of public education you mean the quality of the floor. which is kind of my point-- i think the people at the ceiling can raise the tide for all boats, and the "randomly choose the benevolent leader" strategy is an explicit rejection of the idea that people can be distinguished or qualified in any way for anything.

* ie. Minimax-ing

Re: The election of the doge

#19

Post by shajznnckfke »

cbsks wrote: post #15
gen220 wrote: post #3

It’s fascinating how random selection plays an essential role in the election. The final phase’s selection isn’t random, but many intermediary phases are. I think randomness is an underrated tool for introducing a sense of “fairness” to problems with strange power dynamics: where everyone is interested in a fair outcome, but the best outcome for any individual causes some harm to the group. Salary negotiation is one…

> Imagine haggling over the range start or range size, and then picking your salary from a uniform distribution contained by that range. I think that it’s important that the last step is not random. I can’t imagine the job applicant would be happy with their salary being chosen randomly.

From my perspective, that’s pretty much how it works anyway. At the end of the day you’re sampling from a distribution. You can improve the outcome by networking, interview prep, and negotiation strategy but all of those are just changing the shape of the distribution. I would reject the idea of intentionally adding more randomness because the signal is already so obscured.

Re: The election of the doge

#20

Post by a-nikolaev »

gen220 wrote: post #3

It’s fascinating how random selection plays an essential role in the election. The final phase’s selection isn’t random, but many intermediary phases are. I think randomness is an underrated tool for introducing a sense of “fairness” to problems with strange power dynamics: where everyone is interested in a fair outcome, but the best outcome for any individual causes some harm to the group. Salary negotiation is one…

What if randomness here also might be a mechanism for possible divine intervention?
Post reply on HN