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

Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

lottocracy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 105 posts

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#11

Post by gwbas1c »

echelon wrote: post #2

> What if elections are the problem? Social media is the problem. We weren't this polarized until after the Bush admin, right as everyone on the planet got online. Politics used to be civil. Republicans and Democrats in Congress used to go out to lunch together. Hyper online discourse and algorithms that boost rage ended that. We're all being taught to foam at the mouth to increase screen time.

The George W. Bush era (not administration) was very polarized.

When I read his memoir, he didn't come across as polarized, but more naive about polarization in the media. He did mention that he regretted not having a better media presence.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#12

Post by poly2it »

echelon wrote: post #2

> What if elections are the problem? Social media is the problem. We weren't this polarized until after the Bush admin, right as everyone on the planet got online. Politics used to be civil. Republicans and Democrats in Congress used to go out to lunch together. Hyper online discourse and algorithms that boost rage ended that. We're all being taught to foam at the mouth to increase screen time.

Yes, access to information must be the problem! Neglect the real danger of social media, the corporations behind them.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#13

Post by keiferski »

Not exactly a new idea...but I do think it's one that is underused in democratic societies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Having said that, it doesn't seem obvious to me that elected power is actually all that powerful, compared to unelected powers like corporations. I think you could use the same reasoning as pro-sortition arguments, but to argue for more democracy and elections, not less. Or at least that a state/citizen-focused theory of power is inadequate. (Raymond Geuss talks more about this.)

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#14

Post by gwbas1c »

nephihaha wrote: post #9
echelon wrote: post #2

> What if elections are the problem? Social media is the problem. We weren't this polarized until after the Bush admin, right as everyone on the planet got online. Politics used to be civil. Republicans and Democrats in Congress used to go out to lunch together. Hyper online discourse and algorithms that boost rage ended that. We're all being taught to foam at the mouth to increase screen time.

They still go to lunch together. They do so at climate conferences, Davos, and all the other places us peasants are not invited to.

Because many of us forget that getting elected and staying elected requires putting on an act for the minority of Americans who vote in primaries.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#15

Post by jawns »

The main problem with choosing representatives by lottery is that the average person just doesn't want to do the job. I know I wouldn't. It's about as appealing as having to do jury duty for three years.

The book proposes financial incentives as a way to address this reluctance, such as paying the person 1.5 times their current salary. But that seems like it will lead to representatives who are only doing it for the money, not because they care about doing a good job.

And then, of course, there's always a chance that you end up in a "Napoleon of Notting Hill" situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Napoleon_of_Notting_Hill

Part of me wonders what would happen if a lottery were used not to select representatives from among the population at large, but from among the candidates who have won their parties' respective primaries. Of course, then you'd have to decide whether to use weighted selections (which would strongly favor the entrenched parties) or non-weighted (which would give a strong edge to minor parties).

But realistically, sensible term limits seem like they would help achieve a lot of what the proposed lottocracy system would achieve.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#18

Post by [deleted] »

gwbas1c wrote: post #6
andrewflnr wrote: post #3

It's really, ah, silly to claim this is a new idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition dates back to ancient Athens.

> Perhaps we can use this wild ancient idea to build a new, better democracy for the 21st century and beyond… The linked page makes it very clear that this is an old idea.

[deleted]

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#19

Post by websiteapi »

I doubt this would work better. the average person simply isn't a good executive. they'd end up getting dominated by the assertive folks. a simpler and easier solution to our problems to enforce approval voting across all elections, local, state and national, which will easily allow for moderates to siphon all votes and moderate the country drastically.
Post reply on HN