61–70 of 99 posts
In case someone else, like me, was expecting canine memes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge > A doge was an elected lord and chief of state in several Italian city-states, notably Venice and Genoa, during the medieval and renaissance periods.
Anyone curious about modern sortition:
Citizen juries are chosen by lottery. They review policy and make recommendations. Non binding, but impactful.
https://xraypod.com/show/democracy-nerd/exporting-oregon-sty...
--
IMHO:
Treat representation and policy making as distinct and separate activities.
I'm very political. Over time, I've become increasingly disinterested in electoral politics and campaigns. At best, it's tangentially related to policy work. Less so over time.
The real power these days lies with interest groups and lobbyists. Both on the left and right.
There are some notable exceptions, where electeds are effective advocates of change, but they're rare. Most are just doing triage.
And what outsiders see as partisanship is just different teams funded by different coalitions of interest groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine haggling over the range start or range size, and then picking your salary from a uniform distribution contained by that range. I cannot imagine anyone, ever, being happy with being told "hey you're great but you only rolled a 4 on your salary negotiation so you're $15k out of pocket.
And if you roll a high salary your employer has an incentive to get rid of you and replace you with someone who rolled a 2.
An example of a large range in my head is like 120-140k, a more typical one would be like 120-130k. If you’re good, you could negotiate a bigger range.
That’s an appreciable difference to the employee, but basically a rounding error to the employer.
If you have a high salary today your employer already has an incentive to get rid of you and replace you with a new grad. It already happens.
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 cannot imagine anyone, ever, being happy with being told "hey you're great but you only rolled a 4 on your salary negotiation so you're $15k out of pocket.
Yay the outcome of the negotiation, the lower part of your range is something you’d be happy with, and the upper is something you’d be quite happy with.
The employer meanwhile is offering you a range from what they’d like, to what they can tolerate.
Anything you get in the middle is satisfactory to both parties, with the added benefit that you didn’t have to beg for it and they didn’t have to cave for it.
Randomness allows for some absolution of responsibility.
If you’re shameless in salary negotiations (not a bad thing for you), this system puts you at a relative disadvantage. But the median person finds salary negotiations to be nerve wracking. I think this helps people closer to the median, by allowing them to negotiate a better position without feeling as guilty about it.
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…
In the painting, that room is much smaller than it's depicted I think, or maybe people were a lot smaller in those days
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…
Mathematicians already know that random selection is a powerful tool in fairness in electoral processes, the problem is with asking the modern democratic citizen and politician to accept a random process.
[Late to the party, sorry.] Anyone curious about modern sortition: Citizen juries are chosen by lottery. They review policy and make recommendations. Non binding, but impactful. https://healthydemocracy.org https://xraypod.com/show/democracy-nerd/exporting-oregon-sty... -- IMHO: Treat representation and policy making as distinct and separate activities. I'm very political. Over time, I've become increasingly disinter…
While interesting, it's not an ideal system because it's still the elite picking one of their own.
The non-elite are not inherently purer than the elite, and they are generally less well-educated. I am not certain how 'elite' has become a bad thing: shouldn't we all aspire to be among the elite?
I thought that there was some real genius to the English system, which at one time provided voices for both the great families and the citizenry, roughly balanced under the Crown. So too the U.S. system of senatorial selection prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment.