• What if we replaced politicians with randomly selected people?
    6 replies, posted
It’s about two weeks old but I forgot to post it https://youtu.be/cUee1I69nFs I’ve been a proponent of sortition for years. Maybe not as a way of forming government, but for upper houses in legislatures instead (Senates, Legislative Councils etc). There are various benefits: The body appointed by sortition would, statistically, be representative of the general population; women would be equally represented, ethnic minorities would be represented in the correct proportion, and the working and middle classes would also be proportionally represented. There would be a greater diversity of experience in the sortition body, and the people in the sortition body would be average people; not career politicians. The sortition body is not elected by the public, and therefore is not accountable to the public. It means that votes held by the sortition body could be done so in secret, with only the total number of votes either way being counted, as opposed to how each member voted. It means that lobbying, bribery, coercion etc would be ineffective. Members would be free to vote their conscience, and because the members are representative of the general public (point #1), they would typically vote in the public’s best interests. Having an elected lower house and an appointed (by sortition) upper house in the legislature would mean that the members from each house are sourced in two different ways, creating a check on each other. As opposed to both houses being elected, where one party or coalition can usually win control of both houses, negating one of the points of bicameralism. Having the sortition body appointed eg each year, with members ‘conscripted’ (with a very reasonable salary and benefits) to one-year terms, would expose many members of the public to public service. These members of the public can share their experiences with their friends, family and colleagues once their term is over, leading to a better-informed public in the long term.
IMO let's adopt the Athenian model so I can act out my fantasy of being Cleisthenes 2.0.
Certainly an interesting concept. The sticking point i see though is that the average person is a moron.
Wouldn't change much tbh
Well yeah, but we already entrust average people with voting. Surely it couldn’t be worse for a random selection of people to be engaged in the public service, where they will have the opportunity to become properly informed on the various matters of governance?
Yeah the average poltician is a charismatic moron that's been bought. I don't think this is as bad as it sounds, it would also shift corporate interests to appease citizens since they can't target individuals anymore either.
The systems that allow people to abuse power in a representative democracy are almost exactly the same as the ones that could be abused under this system. Fixing those loopholes is more important for society than which system of government we have. I'm cautiously optimistic for this idea but there's concerns.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.