Give political power to ordinary people: To fight elite capture of the state, it’s time to consider sortition, or the assignment of political power through lotteries
Honestly I'm pretty fine with elites as long as, of course, we are able to choose which one we want and our chosen elite isn't going to undo democracy. it sucks, but it sucks the least. Giving...
Honestly I'm pretty fine with elites as long as, of course, we are able to choose which one we want and our chosen elite isn't going to undo democracy. it sucks, but it sucks the least. Giving political power to regular people through a lottery would likely lead to totally unqualified, malevolent, or obviously corrupt politicians. This sounds a bit like some of our current politicians, but at least we can vote against them.
I think the only way something like this could work is to create an additional legislative branch that selects its members in a lottery or even replace the House of Representatives with it. After all, the House was designed to be a more dynamic branch checked by the senate.
by no means am i an advocate for sortition of legislatures because i just don't buy that as working, but i don't know that this is a particularly good critique of sortition as an idea because the...
Giving political power to regular people through a lottery would likely lead to totally unqualified, malevolent, or obviously corrupt politicians.
by no means am i an advocate for sortition of legislatures because i just don't buy that as working, but i don't know that this is a particularly good critique of sortition as an idea because the obvious retort to that point would be does that really differ from what already, currently exists (and on what would most likely be a larger scale as well, given the trajectory of most politicians)? because there are plenty of people who categorically do not deserve to be congresspeople or members of parliament, who are unambiguously corrupt, and who are pretty malevolent. that's also before you get to people who seem to answer or openly answer to donor interests before their constituents, which is a pretty common thing itself.
It's a common concern, however I'll offer one of the same counterpoints that they make in the article: we currently already do something very similar with trial juries. While that system certainly...
would likely lead to totally unqualified, malevolent, or obviously corrupt politicians.
It's a common concern, however I'll offer one of the same counterpoints that they make in the article: we currently already do something very similar with trial juries. While that system certainly isn't perfect, it does not appear to suffer from the potential issues you've pointed out, at least not at a systemic level.
Honestly I'm pretty fine with elites as long as,
I'm curious if you're using "elites" here as synonymous with "expert"? I usually interpret the usage of it as "people who are more interested in power than competency".
Good point. However, for a government to function best we need technocrats who have experience. And, despite voters sometimes being swayed by populists with limited understanding of how to govern...
It's a common concern, however I'll offer one of the same counterpoints that they make in the article: we currently already do something very similar with trial juries. While that system certainly isn't perfect, it does not appear to suffer from the potential issues you've pointed out, at least not at a systemic level.
Good point. However, for a government to function best we need technocrats who have experience. And, despite voters sometimes being swayed by populists with limited understanding of how to govern properly, voting is a better check. As I said, a hybrid system could work.
I'm curious if you're using "elites" here as synonymous with "expert"? I usually interpret the usage of it as "people who are more interested in power than competency".
I'm using it just basically to refer to the political establishment, anyone who isn't an outsider/populist. I was continuing the terminology from many who are feeling marginalized by politicians they perceive to be elite and thus want radical change to remove them from power when, IMO, the system needs reform (like campaign finance & increased economic mobility) but works pretty well.
This sounds like more than a few politicians I can think of right now. People power is something I think about a lot as an aspiring anarchist. Part of the program to bring all power to all people...
totally unqualified, malevolent, or obviously corrupt politicians.
This sounds like more than a few politicians I can think of right now.
People power is something I think about a lot as an aspiring anarchist. Part of the program to bring all power to all people is to educate them and to make freely accessible the sorts of information needed for informed consent. Part of the reason our democracies are failing the world over is the elites control the media and the schools through broadcasting monopolies and undemocratic tuition and instruction design.
If we bring the knowledge to the people they can hopefully make better choices. Or continue to abstain.
This lottery idea though is just absurd to me though.
Honestly I'm pretty fine with elites as long as, of course, we are able to choose which one we want and our chosen elite isn't going to undo democracy. it sucks, but it sucks the least. Giving political power to regular people through a lottery would likely lead to totally unqualified, malevolent, or obviously corrupt politicians. This sounds a bit like some of our current politicians, but at least we can vote against them.
I think the only way something like this could work is to create an additional legislative branch that selects its members in a lottery or even replace the House of Representatives with it. After all, the House was designed to be a more dynamic branch checked by the senate.
by no means am i an advocate for sortition of legislatures because i just don't buy that as working, but i don't know that this is a particularly good critique of sortition as an idea because the obvious retort to that point would be does that really differ from what already, currently exists (and on what would most likely be a larger scale as well, given the trajectory of most politicians)? because there are plenty of people who categorically do not deserve to be congresspeople or members of parliament, who are unambiguously corrupt, and who are pretty malevolent. that's also before you get to people who seem to answer or openly answer to donor interests before their constituents, which is a pretty common thing itself.
It's a common concern, however I'll offer one of the same counterpoints that they make in the article: we currently already do something very similar with trial juries. While that system certainly isn't perfect, it does not appear to suffer from the potential issues you've pointed out, at least not at a systemic level.
I'm curious if you're using "elites" here as synonymous with "expert"? I usually interpret the usage of it as "people who are more interested in power than competency".
Good point. However, for a government to function best we need technocrats who have experience. And, despite voters sometimes being swayed by populists with limited understanding of how to govern properly, voting is a better check. As I said, a hybrid system could work.
I'm using it just basically to refer to the political establishment, anyone who isn't an outsider/populist. I was continuing the terminology from many who are feeling marginalized by politicians they perceive to be elite and thus want radical change to remove them from power when, IMO, the system needs reform (like campaign finance & increased economic mobility) but works pretty well.
This sounds like more than a few politicians I can think of right now.
People power is something I think about a lot as an aspiring anarchist. Part of the program to bring all power to all people is to educate them and to make freely accessible the sorts of information needed for informed consent. Part of the reason our democracies are failing the world over is the elites control the media and the schools through broadcasting monopolies and undemocratic tuition and instruction design.
If we bring the knowledge to the people they can hopefully make better choices. Or continue to abstain.
This lottery idea though is just absurd to me though.