Live data from Hacker News

Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

lottocracy.org

31–40 of 105 posts

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#31

“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.

Would you rather be treated (medically) by the first 2000 people? Do you think code will be written better by the first 2000? I get being unhappy about current political class, but this kind of claims is wild to me.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#32

“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.

Mr. Buckley may or may not be shocked, but he's certainly a vocal opponent of a competent effective government, so all of his thoughts on how he'd prefer to be governed should be ignored with extreme prejudice.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#34
I think this idea (which is properly called sortition) would work even better if combined with the normal kind of democracy.

Most western democracies already have a two-chamber system (commons/lords, congress/senate etc), but those two chambers are elected in very similar ways. Instead, we could make one of them elected by sortition, while keeping the other one a traditional democracy.

I'd personally split the sortition part into per-area committees. There'd be a main committee with members taken from the general populace, whose only job would be to create the rules of who can be chosen for which committee (e.g. only qualified doctors for medicine). That main committee would also manage inter-committee disputes, in cases where it's not obvious whether a particular committee should be given the right to vote on a particular bill.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#36

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…

>the support staff start to become the ones who effectively make the decisions.

Yes, that's a variation of : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#37

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.

Outlaw lobbying/lobbyists. What's next?

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#38

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.

Well, to be fair, I would also be in favor of banning lobbying entirely, which I recognize is also problematic - then you have laws being written based on sub rosa back room deals, since lobbying is to a certain degree "human relationships in the context of power dynamics" aka politics.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#39

I think this idea (which is properly called sortition) would work even better if combined with the normal kind of democracy. Most western democracies already have a two-chamber system (commons/lords, congress/senate etc), but those two chambers are elected in very similar ways. Instead, we could make one of them elected by sortition, while keeping the other one a traditional democracy. I'd personally split the sortit…

As low an opinion as I have of current politicians, I feel sortition would work even less well.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#40
Why not Plebiscites, updated for the technological age, could function as a mass interface: swipe-based decisions on budgets and policy, where governance emerges from an aggregated collective consciousness rather than elite mediation… thoughts?
Post reply on HN