The election of the doge
generalist.academy
The election of the doge
1–10 of 99 posts
Re: The election of the doge
#2[deleted]
Re: The election of the doge
#3It’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 example. Imagine haggling over the range start or range size, and then picking your salary from a uniform distribution contained by that range. I wonder how the distribution of (un-)satisfactory outcomes of this system that would compare to the one we have today.
It’s also interesting to note certain parallels to structures existing today. The group stage draw for the UEFA Champions League comes to mind.
Re: The election of the doge
#4It’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.
Re: The election of the doge
#5In the painting, that room is much smaller than it's depicted I think, or maybe people were a lot smaller in those days
Re: The election of the doge
#6This is fascinating. One thing that would be awesome to try would be doing this with the House of Representatives in the US.
Basically, one registered voter would be randomly chosen from each congressional district. They would be obligated to serve for the 2 year term and paid the current salary of a member of Congress ($174,000/year). They would never be part of the lottery again after 1 term.
I think this could have a lot of benefits in terms of reducing partisanship and reducing the effects of money in politics as you would have 1/3 of the US Government that was not dependent on campaign contributions.
Re: The election of the doge
#7This is fascinating. One thing that would be awesome to try would be doing this with the House of Representatives in the US. Basically, one registered voter would be randomly chosen from each congressional district. They would be obligated to serve for the 2 year term and paid the current salary of a member of Congress ($174,000/year). They would never be part of the lottery again after 1 term. I think this could hav…
Choosing a random person from the population to be a representative is called sortition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
Re: The election of the doge
#8This is fascinating. One thing that would be awesome to try would be doing this with the House of Representatives in the US. Basically, one registered voter would be randomly chosen from each congressional district. They would be obligated to serve for the 2 year term and paid the current salary of a member of Congress ($174,000/year). They would never be part of the lottery again after 1 term. I think this could hav…
i don't mean to be curt, but that sounds awful. in what sort of ideal world would any leader of anything be chosen this way? this is just some post-post-modern madness. you know what another equally reliable, and arguably more palatable, way to ensure 0 impact of campaign contributions? anarchy. just complete, absolute Hobbesian state of nature. at least then we would pick leaders that would help us survive...
randomness is good insurance against downside risk, especially when choosing a committee of people (e.g. a jury), but it has about as much upside as delegating everything to a random Youtube commenter.
Re: The election of the doge
#9In 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.
Re: The election of the doge
#10It’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.
Yeah, it's tough when that happens. But that is kind of how things go: part of the d20 system's charm is that it successfully approximates the absurd range and randomness inherent in ordinary life.
Sometimes you get a company that gets offended at the prospect of negotiation - that's a 1, although if you get an offer rescinded like that it's probably good for you in the long run.
Sometimes you throw out a ridiculous number for whatever reason and the other side says, "mmmm...yeah, okay." That's a 20. But it's not exactly uncommon to gain or lose 5+ figures because of a random person's random whims at a random time.
It can be hard to reconcile that with the notion of a meritocratic society, but cognitive dissonance is the spice of life.