Representative Government

[UltraBudgie]

It doesn't seem to work.

Maybe if we chose randomly from among voting population? Senate, House, and Presidential Electors.

Thought experiment: what would happen then?

Any other ideas?

[UltraBudgie]

This is called sortition:

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:

Literacy in the United States of America:

• 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
  

https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute...statistics

Or is it? In fact, if it is, doesn't that invalidate all forms of "informed voter" selection?

[Maxmars]

Representation is a simple concept, no?

I am 5-years old, riding my new bicycle in my neighborhood, when some older kids brow beat me into letting them "take a ride."  Hours later, my older sister finds me, crying... she somehow finds the kids... and represents me... I get my bike back.

A senior manager at work lambasts me at work, until another manager intercedes by representing me and takes responsibility...

My daughter was victimized by a bully at school... she told me, I talked with her principal... Next day I get a call about her in an altercation... "policy" is to suspend her... I represent her... she was not suspended... the bully was.

Representation.

-----------------------------

We "select them?" 
No we don't. 
The party selects them. 
What party? 
Does it really matter?

If it did... why doesn't anything ever really change?

Our representatives seem to have the prestige of 'representing' us; but no obligation or responsibility outside of election time.  What they "do" is a matter of "party" determination.... which is why they are 'selected.'

Everyone sees it.

[UltraBudgie]

Well I think the topic is aggregate representation, not the examples of individual representation you gave. Allthough I think you could hire Pinkerton Lifecoach Services to handle those for you haha.

It is interesting to think how parties would change with a sortition system. They wouldn't disappear. Would platforms become granular? Would the clubs become more open? There would be a frenzy for existing coalitions to sign on the fresh meat, instead of it all being scripted before hand, especially with revolving systems like the senate and house, with staggared replacement. How would that play out? Would new representative immediately be pulled into back rooms and shown the palentir, rather than being specifically enticed to islands and brownstones?

Yes this is all something that it hard to imagine the existing party structure evolving or migrating to, but since this is political theory forum...

[Maxmars]

I suppose the aggregate representation should take a different form.  One of adherence to the will and principle of the represented.

But then the matter becomes one of a 'contract' of understanding between the actor and the represented.

In the end, it always comes down to a focus of intent.

(I apologize, I know I'm probably being obtuse...)

[UltraBudgie]

I suppose the aggregate representation should take a different form.  One of adherence to the will and principle of the represented.

But then the matter becomes one of a 'contract' of understanding between the actor and the represented.

In the end, it always comes down to a focus of intent.

(I apologize, I know I'm probably being obtuse...)

Not at all. Understanding follows engagement, not the other way around.

It's interesting that you mention contract. Contracts will never benefit you. At the best, one could hope for neutrality, but that would likely be naive.

Many governments are premised on the concept of a "social contract". How's that working out?

Judgments of representation require an abstract base model. A definition of where the middle of the bell-curves are. Such judgment from within the system being represented is never objective. Sortition avoids that problem.

Never trust any externality that say "take me to your leader".

[UltraBudgie]

No one cares about this discussion but I am going to post this anyway. From the Harvard Political Review:

The Case for Sortition in America

...The political realities of 2020 have laid bare that these flaws are structural to American democracy itself and have existed since its founding. Our system is not broken; it is functioning exactly as was intended. The system was always built around undemocratic institutions. The Electoral College, which allowed President Trump to be elected despite losing the popular vote, was created to protect the interests of slaveholding aristocrats in the South. Members of Congress are able to sustain decades-long careers in Congress despite consistently low approval ratings because of millions of dollars in lawful donations from Wall Street firms — donations which were made legal in the first place by a 5-4 decision from the nine lifetime-appointed justices on the Supreme Court. None of the undemocratic systems governing us today are subversions of the Constitution. On the contrary, they are all perfectly legal.

How, then, do we save American democracy? Sortition.

In simplest terms, sortition means appointment by lottery. In America, sortition would mean replacing Congress with assemblies made up of randomly chosen American citizens; elected representatives are entirely eliminated. Almost every responsibility of the legislative branch is delegated to a randomly subset of the population. Laws are written, discussed, and passed by ordinary people. Federal judges are interviewed and confirmed by ordinary people....

I suppose it's more profitable to have a political system that feeds on division, amplifies inequality, and acts to make individuals atomized and powerless.

[Maxmars]

Don't tell me I don't care!   I am simply daunted by the topic (as you will likely see in my response below)

PS - My anti-spyware went bonkers trying to reach the Harvard site.  So please forgive me if I missed out on anything beyond the quote...

Democracy is a construct, a tool which we are still in the process of designing to suit our respective societies.  It isn't, in and of itself, "American."  People argue endlessly about what democracy is... running back through history to affirm its' heritage.  But the principle doesn't speak of nations... only people seeking to live harmoniously in peace among each other.

The intricacies of politics should serve politicians to plumb the depths of the principle problems of democracy, but as we can all see, that's clearly NOT what they are all about.

Why would the slavery which ended the 19th century be of significance, when today's slavery - by many measures 'worse' - doesn't figure into the solution?
I find the allusion to slavery as approaching the level of 'trope' (sort of like obligatory DEI references about gender, and equity, among so many others.)

At some point in useful analysis, we have to divest ourselves of our outrage and angst over the past which we cannot change. I agree that it is not the system that's as broke as we are told.  In fact it's not the 'tool'... it's the staff that are "the problem."

They leap at the changes to the system, tweaked for the political moment.  That stands as the fuel of most of our governing class' egregious deviations from the "intent" of American democracy.  It's a crass generalization, I know... politics is so subtle... so intricate... or so the politicians say.


Sortition, at this point would be a surrender to "blind luck."  I am afraid I don't really feel lucky.

[UltraBudgie]

Don't tell me I don't care!   I am simply daunted by the topic (as you will likely see in my response below)

PS - My anti-spyware went bonkers trying to reach the Harvard site.  So please forgive me if I missed out on anything beyond the quote...

This is due a more thorough response, but a quick note to say that yes, I can tell you care.

And thank you for that -- I was being bitter, and it's good to be called on that I suppose. At least, life seem to whack me whenever I do it, so I'll at least pretend to like the effect, haha.

Interesting about the spyware -- I wonder if that's because Harvard Political Review is written by undergraduates, who perhaps haven't learned to quite colour inside the lines of policy discussion yet? Hmm. It also explains the plantation-owner reference; that seems to be an almost automatic reflex to include something like that, prof pleasing and alignment signalling. Not that it's an invalid point, but as you can see it tends to 'channel' discussion.

Anyway, the "blind luck" point is a good one, and deserves some thought, so enough from me for now.