10 hours ago
This post was last modified 10 hours ago by UltraBudgie.
This is called sortition:
The part about it avoiding oligarchs buying their way into office is interesting. Perhaps the solution to plutocratic usurpation has already been discovered, in the past? It certainly doesn't seem like a new problem.
The questions of expertise of randomly-selected representatives is an interesting one. Is this a place where modern technology would help? Information awareness and staff management come to mind.
Examining this possibility, and knee-jerk reactions to how absurd it may sound, might help highlight whether the classism, racism, and conflict within our political systems, nationally and internationally, are an unfortunate flaw, or something that humanity still hasn't grown up enough to not secretly want there. I suspect its the latter.
Is this a prisoner dilemma problem? Perhaps sortition would be a better system of government, but would it be less ruthless, and therefore destined to fail? Is the best government one that focuses power to special interests without constraint, or one that diffuses them?
ETA: Also, this could be a problem:
Or is it? In fact, if it is, doesn't that invalidate all forms of "informed voter" selection?
Quote:Athenian democracy developed in the 6th century BC out of what was then called isonomia (equality of law and political rights). Sortition was then the principal way of achieving this fairness. It was utilized to pick most of the magistrates for their governing committees, and for their juries (typically of 501 men).
Most Athenians believed sortition, not elections, to be democratic and used complex procedures with purpose-built allotment machines (kleroteria) to avoid the corrupt practices used by oligarchs to buy their way into office. According to the author Mogens Herman Hansen, the citizen's court was superior to the assembly because the allotted members swore an oath which ordinary citizens in the assembly did not, therefore the court could annul the decisions of the assembly. Most Greek writers who mention democracy (including Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus and Pericles) emphasize the role of selection by lot, or state outright that being allotted is more democratic than elections (which were seen as oligarchic). Socrates and Isocrates however questioned whether randomly-selected decision-makers had enough expertise.
The part about it avoiding oligarchs buying their way into office is interesting. Perhaps the solution to plutocratic usurpation has already been discovered, in the past? It certainly doesn't seem like a new problem.
The questions of expertise of randomly-selected representatives is an interesting one. Is this a place where modern technology would help? Information awareness and staff management come to mind.
Examining this possibility, and knee-jerk reactions to how absurd it may sound, might help highlight whether the classism, racism, and conflict within our political systems, nationally and internationally, are an unfortunate flaw, or something that humanity still hasn't grown up enough to not secretly want there. I suspect its the latter.
Is this a prisoner dilemma problem? Perhaps sortition would be a better system of government, but would it be less ruthless, and therefore destined to fail? Is the best government one that focuses power to special interests without constraint, or one that diffuses them?
ETA: Also, this could be a problem:
Quote:Literacy in the United States of America:https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute...statistics
- 21% of adults are illiterate
- 54% of adults have a literacy below 6th grade level
- 45 million are functionally illiterate and read below a 5th grade level
- 44% of adults do not read a book in a year
- 130 million adults are unable to read a simple story to their children
- 3 out of 4 people on welfare can’t read
- 3 out of 5 people in prisons can’t read
- The USA ranks 36th in literacy
Or is it? In fact, if it is, doesn't that invalidate all forms of "informed voter" selection?
