I've heard of proposals for Sortitions before, and am as skeptical now as I was then. When I first came across the idea it was held up as a way to combat populism: but who is to say that the views...
I've heard of proposals for Sortitions before, and am as skeptical now as I was then.
When I first came across the idea it was held up as a way to combat populism: but who is to say that the views of those selected would be any more or less populist than the representatives that were elected? This argument is stronger for proportionate systems than winner takes all systems, as the cross section is spread across the entire country, representing views that have a broad base; but the point remains that elected representatives take views that will get them elected, so are more likely to have a broader cross section than a randomly selected group.
The second criticism I have of the idea is the central role that experts play in guiding discussion or giving expert opinion. While this point is not specifically made, this facilitation puts a great deal of power in a person who will undoubtedly know a large amount about the subject matter and is therefore in a position to make a convincing case for a personal view that they might believe to be correct. As messy as it currently is, at least those who hold 'alternative facts' to be true can have their evidence tested against the argument they make and the assumptions they hold. If anyone can make an argument that is plain for others to see and test, then is that not just as good as some self-appointed expert?
Representative democracy and public forums may not be perfect, but I believe they are better than this proposal.
edit: added a wiki link, which ironically needs more expert input
I've heard of proposals for Sortitions before, and am as skeptical now as I was then.
When I first came across the idea it was held up as a way to combat populism: but who is to say that the views of those selected would be any more or less populist than the representatives that were elected? This argument is stronger for proportionate systems than winner takes all systems, as the cross section is spread across the entire country, representing views that have a broad base; but the point remains that elected representatives take views that will get them elected, so are more likely to have a broader cross section than a randomly selected group.
The second criticism I have of the idea is the central role that experts play in guiding discussion or giving expert opinion. While this point is not specifically made, this facilitation puts a great deal of power in a person who will undoubtedly know a large amount about the subject matter and is therefore in a position to make a convincing case for a personal view that they might believe to be correct. As messy as it currently is, at least those who hold 'alternative facts' to be true can have their evidence tested against the argument they make and the assumptions they hold. If anyone can make an argument that is plain for others to see and test, then is that not just as good as some self-appointed expert?
Representative democracy and public forums may not be perfect, but I believe they are better than this proposal.
edit: added a wiki link, which ironically needs more expert input