I got summoned for Jury Duty! (Hooray!)
I have specific goals for when I am on jury duty. Items to discuss. Ways to present myself to prosecutors.
But, here's what I actually want to discuss: Replacing elections with assignment by random lot.
That is: Choosing legislatures randomly. Choosing mayors randomly. Choosing Govenors randomly. Ensuring legislatures match the demographic makeup of those represented.
Moving away from the millionaire and billionaire's club and to something that is closer to representing the people.
It worked in Ireland for the abortion amendment; an unelected group chosen randomly. They voted 2/3rds to propose getting rid of the abortion ban. The country voted, and it was also 2/3rds: the unelected chosen by lot representatives of the people represented the people's will.
Jury Duty doesn't pay well. We'd want legislatures to pay well.
Maybe, oh, 2.5 to 3 times the average salary? And no repercussion if you don't show up?
That way, you'll have civic engagement most among those who make less than 2.5 times the average salary.
This is the collection where I seek other people's views, not the one where I stake out a position and hold it. That is intentional: What do you think of such a system?
Better or worse than the electoral college? Than gerrymandered districts?
When you've thought through that, ask: Is this feasible?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it's a great idea. I've used it in my fantasy games.
ReplyDeleteI suspect it would leave an awful lot of power in the hands of the unelected career civil service... like Yes, Minister, but more so.
ReplyDeleteThat might be good, on balance. It might be bad.
I just came upon the word for this idea yesterday I think, "sortition."
ReplyDeleteInstinctually, I'm not a fan. I respect expertise. Even though a lot of the expertise we have is noxious.
The closest we have to this is referenda, as you've pointed out in the Irish example. While great things have come out of referenda, bad things have, too.
en.wikipedia.org - Sortition - Wikipedia
From the article:
ReplyDelete[Socrates] taught his companions to despise the established laws by insisting on the folly of appointing public officials by lot, when none would choose a pilot or builder or flautist by lot, nor any other craftsman for work in which mistakes are far less disastrous than mistakes in statecraft.
Brian Ashford Does using it in fantasy indicate its about as likely as dragons and elves?
ReplyDeleteTony Lower-Basch As opposed to, i dunno, the koch bothers? I'll take it.
ReplyDeleteRobert Bohl Then ... why have democracy? Why not, instead, have a smart, capable technocrat who sets all policy?
ReplyDelete[ As a note: I've just used several formal fallacies. I'm under the weather. Please read charitably. This isn't my argumenting collection. ]
ReplyDeleteRepresentative democracy is imperfect. I believe a technocracy or a sortition would probably be worse.
ReplyDeleteThe big problem with this system is that you can end up with decision makers who are not educated in the subjects they have to decide upon. This is also a problem with the democratic systems most of us here are currently suffering through.
ReplyDeleteThe big benefit here is that if decision makers are randomly chosen then no-one can go into politics for their own personal gain and it makes it harder for others to influence those decision makers for their own benefit.
Personally I think I want governance to look like science. Well researched, fact-based, peer reviewed government.
I've long been of the opinion that 2nd chamber reform in the UK is best accomplished by making it into a true House of Peers through sortition/demarchy.
ReplyDeleteI also have a lot of sympathy with the view for properly enshrining appropriate expertise in the system, perhaps through a third chamber House of Professions (open to Science PhDs & chartered engineers).
Of course, this begs the question, if you have a House of Peers and a House of Professions, what do you need a House of Commons for? In my view, you don't need it alongside these other bodies, so you abolish it.
Mamading Ceesay Do I know you? You seem great! Where you moving after G+?
ReplyDeleteMamading Ceesay that's brilliant! Amongst the sortition group, you'll have a good representation across the population, which would likely include anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, etc.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to think those selected would attempt to educate themselves, but they would be subject to influence by knowledgable civil servants and the most motivated of their randomly selected compatriots (such as that hypothetical fanatical anti-vaxxer).
Having another group composed of "professions" might serve as a counterbalance. Of course that house might just end up being unduly influenced.