Live data from Hacker News

Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

lottocracy.org

21–30 of 105 posts

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#21
The issue with randomly selected representation is that the support staff start to become the ones who effectively make the decisions.

This is the same issue with term limits (which to be clear, I'm in favor of, but we have to go in with our eyes open), which is that e.g. the congressional staffers gain power, especially if they persist across the end of the term limit.

In these kinds of cases, you almost need term limits for staff, which feels pretty cruel and arbitrary - "Thank you for making a career in public service but you are now legally barred from your chosen career"

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#22
I don’t think it solves the core limitation of democracy - limits you to lowest common denominator of what the man on the street thinks. Who is by definition of average intelligence.

It’s all sorts of rubbish and not conducive to solving problems decisively but seems to be the only system where power doesn’t get monopolized

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#23

  “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.” -- William F. Buckley.
Now more than ever. See "Franchise" (1955) by Isaac Asimov for an efficient version.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#24

So called democracy is already "hacked". What you do is create a two party system in most countries, which provides the illusion of choice.

What "most countries" have a two-party system? From the summary below, most democracies actually seem to not have one. Spain, for example, used to be rather binary in early 2k, but its parliament has diversified since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

Maybe Americans should question why new parties cannot be formed that actually represent their people instead of looking to replace democracy entirely with...a lottery? I can't comment further because I am not American.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#25
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.

There have been brief periods where civility was normal, but politics and extreme heated emotion and polarization are the norm. Murder, mayhem, riots, extreme, ridiculous mud-slinging, and simmering turmoil have been the default state for a majority of human history.

Social media has exacerbated things in some ways, but in others, it's imposed an artificial civility as people get settled into their bubbles and vent online instead of taking action.

Just look at all the political violence in each decade of the 20th century in the US. Look at all the bombings, arson, murder, riots since 1950.

The dynamics have changed, but it'll be decades or more before humanity is anywhere near culturally settled down with the internet and instant global communication. It's already a net good, but massive online platforms and entrenched power players manipulating narratives and so on still need to be calibrated in policy.

The civility you remember might simply have been that all the violence wasn't being reported and headlining in major outlets 24/7. The threshold for newsworthy events and the willing participation of news outlets in managing perception created a very sterile and civil seeming facade over what's been more or less constant chaos.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#26

“I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.” -- William F. Buckley. Now more than ever. See "Franchise" (1955) by Isaac Asimov for an efficient version.

I'm afraid that mr Buckley would be shocked if he actually met and had a conversation with the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone book.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#27
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 post-war partisan environment was pretty unique in American history for its civility and substantial overlap between the two parties. The late 19th century had a level of partisanship comparable to today, though much of it was filtered through ethnic and religious identities in a way that would be unfamiliar to people today. In many ways, our modern political environment is a reversion to the mean. I wouldn’t bet money on social media specifically being the primary driver of this change (though I do think the collapse in barriers to sharing information has allowed for partisanship identity to be formed along ideological lines, rather than geographical or cultural lines, in a way that is unique.)

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#28

The issue with randomly selected representation is that the support staff start to become the ones who effectively make the decisions. This is the same issue with term limits (which to be clear, I'm in favor of, but we have to go in with our eyes open), which is that e.g. the congressional staffers gain power, especially if they persist across the end of the term limit. In these kinds of cases, you almost need term l…

Great. Now we have inexperienced legislators, inexperienced aides, and experienced lobbyists. That's definitely going to be an improvement rather than an absolute catastrophe.

Term limits are like so many populist ideas: they sound great until you think at all about the consequences.

Effective government requires people with a long tenure. That's how you learn how the system operates, that's how you build the relationships that allow you to get things done, and that's how you build the reputation that allows you to get people to believe in what you say and accomplish things.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#29

“I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.” -- William F. Buckley. Now more than ever. See "Franchise" (1955) by Isaac Asimov for an efficient version.

The average person can barely read and knows nothing about world history and politics. No thanks.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#30

The issue with randomly selected representation is that the support staff start to become the ones who effectively make the decisions. This is the same issue with term limits (which to be clear, I'm in favor of, but we have to go in with our eyes open), which is that e.g. the congressional staffers gain power, especially if they persist across the end of the term limit. In these kinds of cases, you almost need term l…

And if you try to place limits on staffers, then you’ll find even more legislation being drafted by lobbyists.
Post reply on HN