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

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#91

Post by dragonwriter »

jaggederest wrote: post #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 l…

> 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.

Term limits are a bad hack trying to fix the problem that the status quo electoral system presents (1) too few meaningful choices, and (2) largely as a consequence of #1 and relatively stable local ideological mixes, features very strong incumbency preferences.

Fix the electoral system to resolve that (lots of ways to do that), and the broken idea of term limits stops being an attractive way to pretend that you are doing something without actually fixing the problems.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#92

Post by MadameMinty »

nh23423fefe wrote: post #76
MadameMinty wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd simply have to be carefully drafted policy rather than an internet comment.

So simple it's indescribable

This notion always puzzles me. It's not a complex idea.

Just like, say, banning GMO bananas. But such regulation is a whole text which may need to define or refer to definitions of "GMO" and "banana", specify what's banned, exemptions, enforcement authority, penalties, and so on. Maybe 10 pages of legalese. It requires time, expertise, research. But it's still just a ban on GMO bananas.

Or a programmed UI button to show a message. Simple. The specifics of the execution are a separate matter.

It's not "indescribable", but no one will describe it to you ad hoc and expecting it is silly.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#94

Post by MadameMinty »

nh23423fefe wrote: post #73
MadameMinty wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple. Don't protect it just like sharing nuclear secrets or CSAM isn't protected.

What's "it"? Speaking in public?

Making strawmen. Your position of "policy is impossible to write" is inane.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#95

Post by yunnpp »

georgebcrawford wrote: post #87
yunnpp wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)…

It was interesting to read, thanks. I know very little about NZ.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#96

Post by nephihaha »

yunnpp wrote: post #24
nephihaha wrote: post #10

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 wit…

Ah yes, Wikipedia again... It lists Ireland (sic) as a multiparty state, which is only true up to a point— every taoiseach since the 1930s has been from either Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil, and FG/FF form the backbone of every government. Right now they are in coalition to keep Sinn Fein out. Other parties in the Dáil but don't run it.

Denmark seems to be pretty solidly Venstre vs the Social Democrats since the mid nineties with many other parties.

Israel is genuinely multiparty, with a rule that Benjamin Netanyahu must be returned every few years.

Germany is multiparty on paper like Ireland but is dominated by the Christian Democrats and the SPD at federal level. Every Bundeskanzler of West Germany and post-reunification Germany comes from these two. Ditto every president except Gauck.

In mamy countries, there is a level of nepotism with close relatives of former political figures taking charge. Canada, the USA, India, Greece and Thailand have all had this, with some of the same names repeating over the course of generations.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#97

Post by nephihaha »

georgebcrawford wrote: post #49
yunnpp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

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…

NZ is like Ireland. A two party system with other representation. It is also unicameral, and has no president so elected rulers switch between the two.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#98

Post by haizhung »

phtrivier wrote: post #50

The "let's pick people at random to discuss hairy topics" has been done at least three times in France in the form of "Convention Citoyenne". In each case, people came up with relatively "popular" solutions (one of them is still in progress) In each case, the elected officials all but ignored the output, on the ground that the body had not been elected, was manipulated by experts, had no responsibility and accountabi…

Yep, people in this thread are claiming that this doesn’t work.

In fact, it does work, and it is already implemented! Here in Germany we also have the concept of „Bürgerräte“, and we have similar problems as in France (no political power to implement their solutions).

However, one takeaway was that people vastly underestimated how carefully the participants would try to understand the topic at hand. People that would usually just regurgitate angry propaganda were forced to form their own opinion and they did!

IMHO it’s this is a great tool for democracy that is yet underused.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#99

Post by hackeraccount »

boroboro4 wrote: post #31
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.

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.

Politicians aren't making technical choices. They make value judgments.

Not it's raining should I wear galoshes but, should I wear blue or red pants? Not should I buy a sports car or an SUV but do I want to do the things you can do with a sports car or the things you can do with an SUV?

It can get confusing because experts can help inform value judgments but they don't have anymore weight on making them then any other person.

When it comes to those choices having a random selection of a large group instead of a small selection of a group of "experts" is at least an arguable point of view.

Re: Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

#100

Post by nephihaha »

gwbas1c wrote: post #14
nephihaha wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it just depends on being in one of two parties. Primaries are internal organisational operations.

The US set up means that both of these parties are in power at some level and can never be removed.

Post reply on HN