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

81–90 of 105 posts

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#81

Post by undeveloper »

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.

I understand the sentiment, but "Republicans and Democrats" doesn't sound appealing, it makes my blood boil, and certainly you are thinking "this idiot's been brainwashed by social media to think that's a good thing!", maybe, fair. But I think maybe democrats shouldn'tve been doing that during 2012 and playing "they go low, we go high" when they were holding a justice position from a centrist candidate a "sensible" congress wouldve passed, I don't think they should've done that when Bush cried about WMDs, and most recently I don't think they should continue to just "have lunch" after January 6th. I'm goddamn tired of complicit democrats.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#82

Post by coryrc »

observationist wrote: post #25
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.

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 o…

> it's imposed an artificial civility as people get settled into their bubbles and vent online instead of taking action.

Civility serves those taking an ever-growing fraction of the country's wealth generation.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#83

Post by boroboro4 »

delichon wrote: post #79
boroboro4 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion even charisma implies higher than average intellect which is already something. We should put more pressure on elected politicians around competence and integrity, sure, but it doesn’t mean random person is going to be better. In the original comparison second category of people have much higher intellect than average.

> In the original comparison second category of people have much higher intellect than average. I think that intellect may sometimes be weakly and unreliably associated with some kinds of competence, but not with integrity, which is as important. I think power seekers are self-selecting to be more self-serving.

Issue with your original statement is that it implies negative correlation between intellect and being good politician. All the issues you describe (both being self serving and power seeking) apply to anyone regardless to their intellect (and I still think they apply less to people of high intellect just because they see bigger picture, but I might be wrong).

We need to optimize for less self serving and more integrity but we should strive for smarter people up there too.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#84

Post by andrewflnr »

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.

I did miss that one time, but they spend a lot more words calling it "new". And I read their table of contents which also didn't spend any significant time on history.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#85

Post by gwbas1c »

andrewflnr wrote: post #84
gwbas1c wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I did miss that one time, but they spend a lot more words calling it "new". And I read their table of contents which also didn't spend any significant time on history.

The linked PDF, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/66d70657deaace3ac1fc4..., makes it very clear this is an old idea on page 3.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#86

Post by gwbas1c »

We still need elections: There are policy decisions that really need to follow popular support; and there are situations where the general public needs to be able to overrule the legislature. (For example, marijuana legalization in Massachusetts was by a ballot initiative.)

That being said:

1: I think some aspect of randomly choosing legislative bodies helps avoid leaders who are power-seeking.

2: I think "Breaking the Two Party Doom Loop" speaks a lot more about how to fix the issues with elections. https://leedrutman.org/breaking-the-two-party-doom-loop

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#87

Post by georgebcrawford »

yunnpp wrote: post #54
georgebcrawford wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New Zealand isn’t on that list, but two parties generally take 70-80% of the vote. Last election (~65%) was an outlier due to the two leaders being pretty unpopular. However, NZ has a proportional voting system that leads to coalitions forming governments. This is considered a good thing, but can lead to…interesting outcomes. The current government is very much the dog being wagged by a couple of nasty tails. Current…

> Current PM is a weak “I've run a company so can run a country” type. Hopefully a successful company, that is.

He was successful at Air NZ from memory. But they're completely different jobs. For example, he cut services and jobs which helped increase profits. Not uncommon for an airline. The same approach when running a country is disastrous and not uncommon for out of touch neoliberals like Luxon.

His management experience at Air NZ has not correlated with strong leadership. Compare him with the previous PM (Jacinda Ardern) and most Kiwis, even the right, would agree she handled things better. A few lefties like myself think she could have done more (especially wrt to housing policy) with the immense political capital she had just before Covid, but oh well.

You didn't ask for any of that sorry!

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#88

Post by nutjob2 »

delichon wrote: post #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.

That's called 'Government by Aardman'

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#89

Post by dragonwriter »

Arainach wrote: post #32
throw310822 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Generally, inverting them would be superior to ignoring them, but the last thing you should do is take them as good ideas.
Post reply on HN