Can Sortition Help "Fix" Our Damaged Political System?

[cwjerome]

Sortition: In governance, sortition (also known as selection by lottery, selection by lot, allotment, demarchy, stochocracy, and aleatoric democracy) is the selection of political officials as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates.

Greek democracy was largely based on sortition.

I believe our democracy is broken as political cults engage in toxic permanent campaign with divide and conquer tactics while putting the true long term health of the country way down the list. What we need is SORTITION! Turn the House of Representatives into a REAL representative legislative body. Make it a lottery-based system with citizens drafted by (mostly) random sample… 1 year terms.
This would help move away from special interests, cronyism, corruption, oligarchy, and the horrible party bullshit that’s dragging us down. A legislative body free from election and party pressures, free from power hungry stuffed suits with ulterior agendas and no inclination to reason or compromise.

Another benefit of sortition is that it encourages a type of citizenship that I promote... a true "republican" type of citizenry in the classic sense.

 

[dank69]

Let's pretend you are a genius and have found the perfect system of government here. How do you think we should go about implementing it?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Let's pretend you are a genius and have found the perfect system of government here. How do you think we should go about implementing it?

Continue to encourage the US military to grant weapon system authority to automated systems, develop a 'next generation' peacekeeping AI which they will adopt for worldwide control of said systems, then use it to enforce whatever you want, wherever you want?

 

[cwjerome]

If 12 random, normal people can decide whether or not a human being will spend their life in prison, or be sentenced to death… can random, normal people represent each other?

Can normal, random people help create (or remove) legislation and policies? Can anyone explain to me why slick, power hungry hacks that belong to corrupt cults are necessary to make and carry out laws? Why exactly do we need a professional political aristocracy to rule over us?

I imagine something like jury duty (gran juries often go for 6 months). Registered voters (that maybe meet certain requirements) are drafted via a statistically proper random sample from each congressional district. They have a 1-2 week "intro course" for details (I'm thinking if there was a system like this, the roles and duties would be basically known ahead of time), and then serve 1 year.

 

[fskimospy]

If 12 random, normal people can decide whether or not a human being will spend their life in prison, or be sentenced to death… can random, normal people represent each other?

Can normal, random people help create (or remove) legislation and policies? Can anyone explain to me why slick, power hungry hacks that belong to corrupt cults are necessary to make and carry out laws? Why exactly do we need a professional political aristocracy to rule over us?

Because juries are asked to make a decision about at most a small handful of very specific aspects of the law and how they apply to a single set of facts. To assist them with this a number of highly qualified professionals spend considerable time and energy educating them on this one small corner of the law.

I imagine something like jury duty (gran juries often go for 6 months). Registered voters (that maybe meet certain requirements) are drafted via a statistically proper random sample from each congressional district. They have a 1-2 week "intro course" for details (I'm thinking if there was a system like this, the roles and duties would be basically known ahead of time), and then serve 1 year.

I would love to hear how you think people with a 1-2 week civics course would be able to intelligently craft legislation.

 

[dank69]

Your fucking FB page leads me to believe you are either a Russian asset or useful idiot. Done with you. You and @s0me0nesmind1 can enjoy giving each other hand jobs in PMs

 

[nakedfrog]

A former co-worker of mine espoused a similar notion. It's not entirely without merit, but I think ranked choice voting is better.

 

[dank69]

A former co-worker of mine espoused a similar notion. It's not entirely without merit, but I think ranked choice voting is better.

It seems entirely without merit.

 

[cwjerome]

Your fucking FB page leads me to believe you are either a Russian asset or useful idiot. Done with you. You and @s0me0nesmind1 can enjoy giving each other hand jobs in PMs

LOL... bye

 

[pmv]

Heard the suggestion many times, usually as a tongue-in-cheek half-joke, the main argument for it being that nobody who actively seeks power should be allowed to have it.
Sometimes it's put forward as an alternative 'second chamber' to our House Of Lords (which itself has a significant element of randomness about it's make-up - just with a massive class, gender, and racial bias).

It doesn't seem a remotely practical idea though.

 

[fskimospy]

A former co-worker of mine espoused a similar notion. It's not entirely without merit, but I think ranked choice voting is better.

I can't wait to see the international financial derivatives regulation that's going to come out of the office of Uncle Vinny from Queens.

 

[cwjerome]

Because juries are asked to make a decision about at most a small handful of very specific aspects of the law and how they apply to a single set of facts. To assist them with this a number of highly qualified professionals spend considerable time and energy educating them on this one small corner of the law.

I would love to hear how you think people with a 1-2 week civics course would be able to intelligently craft legislation.

We've greatly over-complicated things. And a lot of the rules and processes in the House are there only because of the party garbage... streamline and simplify. Besides, staff do most of the research and stuff like that. You give the politicians too much credit. We'll still have the Senate, but the House should be a REAL representative body.

 

[fskimospy]

We've greatly over-complicated things. And a lot of the rules and processes in the House are there only because of the party garbage... streamline and simplify.

The issues with this idea have nothing to do with parliamentary procedure.

Besides, staff do most of the research and stuff like that. You give the politicians too much credit. We'll still have the Senate, but the House should be a REAL representative body.

In order to have sufficient time and expertise to effectively assist these new legislators staff would have to operate on a permanent basis and these overmatched legislators would basically be at their mercy because there's no way you could get up to speed in a single year. Effectively you've moved power away from democratically accountable officials into a permanent cadre of unelected staffers.

Every part of this idea is terrible.

 

[woolfe9998]

If 12 random, normal people can decide whether or not a human being will spend their life in prison, or be sentenced to death… can random, normal people represent each other?

Can normal, random people help create (or remove) legislation and policies? Can anyone explain to me why slick, power hungry hacks that belong to corrupt cults are necessary to make and carry out laws? Why exactly do we need a professional political aristocracy to rule over us?

I imagine something like jury duty (gran juries often go for 6 months). Registered voters (that maybe meet certain requirements) are drafted via a statistically proper random sample from each congressional district. They have a 1-2 week "intro course" for details (I'm thinking if there was a system like this, the roles and duties would be basically known ahead of time), and then serve 1 year.

So there are no elections? People do not vote? You trust random people with minimal to no education to run the country but you don't trust ordinary people to vote?

 

[dank69]

So there are no elections? People do not vote? You trust random people with minimal to no education to run the country but you don't trust ordinary people to vote?

I suggest you all go to his FB page to see exactly who you're dealing with.

 

[cwjerome]

So there are no elections? People do not vote? You trust random people with minimal to no education to run the country but you don't trust ordinary people to vote?

I thought it was clear, I'm talking about the national House of Representatives. There are plenty of other elections to vote in.

 

[fskimospy]

I thought it was clear, I'm talking about the national House of Representatives. There are plenty of other elections to vote in.

So in other words 2/3rds of the elected government would be run by 'political cults engage[d] in toxic permanent campaign with divide and conquer tactics while putting the true long term health of the country way down the list' and 1/3rd of the elected government would be run by a bunch of random people with no relevant knowledge or expertise.

This keeps getting better.

 

[woolfe9998]

I thought it was clear, I'm talking about the national House of Representatives. There are plenty of other elections to vote in.

So to be clear, you want to end democracy with respect to House elections and allow random people to legislate the country? But it's ok if the evil elites occupy the Senate and oval office?

Just trying understand your position before commenting on it any further.

 

[cwjerome]

So in other words 2/3rds of the elected government would be run by 'political cults engage[d] in toxic permanent campaign with divide and conquer tactics while putting the true long term health of the country way down the list' and 1/3rd of the elected government would be run by a bunch of random people with no relevant knowledge or expertise.

This keeps getting better.

Hahaha, that's a pretty perverted take on it. It's one element of breaking down the 2-party stranglehold. Ranked choice, term limits, banning gerrymandering, open primaries, reformed elections laws (that actually allow independents to run for office, etc)... a general change in values that moves away from partisan polarization. Each is a step in the right direction.

 

[nakedfrog]

I can't wait to see the international financial derivatives regulation that's going to come out of the office of Uncle Vinny from Queens.

Probably about the same quality as the tech legislation the goobers in there write now?
Well, except when it's already placed on their desk pre-written by a lobbyist...

 

[cwjerome]

So to be clear, you want to end democracy with respect to House elections and allow random people to legislate the country? But it's ok if the evil elites occupy the Senate and oval office?

Just trying understand your position before commenting on it any further.

Democracy is not voting. Democracy is rule by the people, although this is usually implemented as a representative democracy. That's fine, I'm not trying to get rid of representative democracy or voting, I'm saying democracy can and should include other features.

 

[brycejones]

I'm saying democracy can and should include other features.

Competence doesn't appear to be one of them in your opinion.

 

[hal2kilo]

Continue to encourage the US military to grant weapon system authority to automated systems, develop a 'next generation' peacekeeping AI which they will adopt for worldwide control of said systems, then use it to enforce whatever you want, wherever you want?

Skynet?

 

[cwjerome]

Competence doesn't appear to be one of them in your opinion.

Because current politicians have proven themselves to be extremely competent. I think too many people have some "savior politician" complex and just want to be ruled by elites. I'd say given the right chance "normal" people can represent us just fine.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Ranked choice, term limits, banning gerrymandering, open primaries, reformed elections laws (that actually allow independents to run for office, etc)... a general change in values that moves away from partisan polarization. Each is a step in the right direction.

I agree with most of the things you say, ranked choice voting for example would be a major improvement to our system.

Term limits are a mixed bag. There are advantages and disadvantages to it. On one hand it means that you always have relatively inexperienced politicians in office, that have low engagement with their office, making them much easier to bribe or influence since they know that they are going to be gone soon no matter how well they do. It removes some of the incentive to do things that are good for the country instead of what is good for you personally.

I don't really know what you mean about 'open primary' as most states already have a fairly open primary system. I would like to know more about this idea.

Gerrymandering is a bane on our system, and should be done away with, but coming up with a system that enough people agree on is challanging.

Also, the election laws allow for independents to run, nearly every election has some independents running. It is just that they can't win like 90% of the time, and even when they do win they can't accomplish anything, because winning and doing anything after requires coalition, and that is really just another name for party. Almost every political system breaks down into some form of party system. Even ranked choice voting systems trend towards two main parties with a handful of sub-parties that circle those main two.

I do know that implementing almost any of this is next to impossible. It would probably require a Constitutional Amendment, and in the current political climate that is just not happening and if you could change the political climate enough to make it happen it probably would not be needed. That is the problem we currently face, the reasons we need change are the very things that keep the change from happening.

Now to the topic of the thread. Sortition is simply a terrible idea. It has never worked on almost any level. It does not even really work in the jury system. The fact is not many people are really suited to politics. The problems we face today are not simple ones. Finding solutions to them will require a lot of sacrifices, and that means a lot of negotiation to find a happy balance for who makes those sacrifices. That sort of negotiation is a learned skill, and one that is quite rare.