Sortition: a completely different model for democracy - representation by random selection - like a giant pool of jurors!

[eclipsenow]

So - what do you make of SORTITION?​

It's like having a random jury pool - but scaled up to run the country.
It was how ancient Athenian democracy worked.
Governments sometimes use it today to discuss some issue - and call it a "citizens’ assembly".

4 reasons I like it:

ONE: MORE EQUAL
Everyone has a chance. It's not influenced by wealth, social status, political careerism - etc.
This randomness tends to mirror the overall society more accurately than the rigged political system we see today.
The randomness and scope of everyone in the ballot should mean the whole population stay more engaged with the political life of their State and Nation - as they could be selected in the next recruitment!
It will involve those often excluded in traditional politics.

TWO: LESS CORRUPT
The government recruitment department funds a simple citizen lottery draw.
There’s no need to campaign or raise funds.
This removes the lobbying and corruption of big business - especially Big Oil!

THREE: BETTER DISCUSSIONS
Without the party politics - it should be far less toxic.
Because it is not election based and party-based - the parliament of the day can have a more thoughtful discussion.
They can honestly enquire of experts with less of the sabotaging, dishonest, partisan nit-picking that we see in the media today.
It produces decisions perceived as more legitimate - even by people outside the assembly.

FOUR: STABLE
As the sortition graph proposed for Tasmania shows - new staff filter in gradually over time. There are no sudden shocks to deal with.
Everyday people will be randomly selected, go through a recruitment and procedural training period, and then join colleagues that have been there a few months through to just about to finish their ONE term! The public servants advising them of procedures and resourcing them in the background can be there for longer terms for stability of the system - but even those should have limited terms should they be perceived as having too much influence themselves. (The much dreaded 'Deep State' paranoia.)

 

[A2SG]

So - what do you make of SORTITION?​

It's like having a random jury pool - but scaled up to run the country.
It was how ancient Athenian democracy worked.
Governments sometimes use it today to discuss some issue - and call it a "citizens’ assembly".

4 reasons I like it:

ONE: MORE EQUAL
Everyone has a chance. It's not influenced by wealth, social status, political careerism - etc.
This randomness tends to mirror the overall society more accurately than the rigged political system we see today.
The randomness and scope of everyone in the ballot should mean the whole population stay more engaged with the political life of their State and Nation - as they could be selected in the next recruitment!
It will involve those often excluded in traditional politics.

TWO: LESS CORRUPT
The government recruitment department funds a simple citizen lottery draw.
There’s no need to campaign or raise funds.
This removes the lobbying and corruption of big business - especially Big Oil!

THREE: BETTER DISCUSSIONS
Without the party politics - it should be far less toxic.
Because it is not election based and party-based - the parliament of the day can have a more thoughtful discussion.
They can honestly enquire of experts with less of the sabotaging, dishonest, partisan nit-picking that we see in the media today.
It produces decisions perceived as more legitimate - even by people outside the assembly.

FOUR: STABLE
As the sortition graph proposed for Tasmania shows - new staff filter in gradually over time. There are no sudden shocks to deal with.
Everyday people will be randomly selected, go through a recruitment and procedural training period, and then join colleagues that have been there a few months through to just about to finish their ONE term! The public servants advising them of procedures and resourcing them in the background can be there for longer terms for stability of the system - but even those should have limited terms should they be perceived as having too much influence themselves. (The much dreaded 'Deep State' paranoia.)



View attachment 369547

Sounds like a pretty good idea. I've heard, and experienced, worse, certainly.

Not sure how it would work here, though. One thing we Americans are good at is ruining decent ideas.

-- A2SG, look at what we've done lately.....

 

[eclipsenow]

Sounds like a pretty good idea. I've heard, and experienced, worse, certainly.

Not sure how it would work here, though. One thing we Americans are good at is ruining decent ideas.

-- A2SG, look at what we've done lately.....

I'm glad you are open minded enough to even consider it. I think it would be more democratic than the big-money system America (and increasingly Australia) have now - where potential candidates are paid for by big oil lobby groups - or others!

How democratic is America right now? 1/3 of Americans didn't vote, 1/3 voted for Kamala - and just a TINY smidge over 1/3 voted for Trump. Therefore, 2/3rds of potential voters did NOT vote for the current regime! About 66%!

I know when comparing actual voters it looked like a convincing win - but when including all potential voters in the adult population?
Is that even democracy?

I'm Australian. Our voting is compulsory - you get a smallish fine if you don't at least turn up.
Some protest vote - and write nonsense on the ballot so it cannot be counted. It's called a "Donkey vote."

But one side effect political scientists have noted is that compulsory voting means a calmer political climate! Why? Because most politicians must aim their political campaigns at a larger proportion of the sane, bored political middle. They exaggerate the political stakes during the campaign of course - but the overall tone is generally far calmer.

Voluntary voting requires politicians to escalate the rhetoric - and the language starts heading towards the frenzied edges - those extremists that have the energy to get out and vote. (On a Tuesday workday no less! Here in Australia we do it on a Saturday, and have a "Democracy Sausage" afterwards.)

But with the rise of Social Media echo-chambers ranting untruths at people - the temperature is even rising here.
But in America? With Trumpism and MAGA raising the stakes!? Ouch. It's feverish - foaming at the mouth territory.

It's the stuff of civil disorder, of Jan 06, of crazy people saying crazy things and getting enough votes to scrape through - or sometimes even win big! Anyway, we know the current system is easily corrupted.

What about Sortition blind spots? What extra checks and balances and failsafe mechanisms would it need?

I'm thinking maybe decadal referendums put to the people to check if the system needed tweaking? Political scientists called in to discuss stuff with a special working group called up - and present a potential new option for a referendum?

 

[iluvatar5150]

I can't imagine this system being effective in anything larger than a PTA or smallish town council, because it completely discounts the complexity of modern society and government as well as the amount of expertise required to legislate effectively. We only kinda-sorta use random selection in jury trials where jurors have no agency beyond making a decision about what's presented to them. Going by the numbers in the OP, members of the executive council would have terms of 7 years, and members of the legislature would have terms of up to 10 years. How the heck do you manage that with a crew randomly selected from the population? Even getting people to serve on a jury is a struggle, and they typically only serve for a few days. These folks would, essentially, have to give up their careers, and quite possibly their homes, for a decade or longer.

 

[eclipsenow]

I can't imagine this system being effective in anything larger than a PTA or smallish town council, because it completely discounts the complexity of modern society and government as well as the amount of expertise required to legislate effectively.

They would be listening to the experts. How often are politicians actually trained engineers, doctors, scientists, or climate scientists? What decisions has Trump made about climate science - and what does he actually know about it? Why has Trump appointed an antivirus as the head of your department of health, a real estate buddy to negotiate peace with Putin - who walks into meetings with Putin without a translator and comes out having made a full of himself, or big lie believers who think the 2020 election was stolen being appointed to run the FBI and DOJ?

There's a reason governments across the world a point various committees or commissions in charge of special investigations, or senate enquiries. They investigate various subjects and get heaps of community input and expert consultants in, and esu all manner of ways of bringing non-experts up to speed.

It's then opened up to the civil service run and supervised democratic process that these sortition members would start to debate. Policy ideas could be thrown around as they are on many matters today.

We only kinda-sorta use random selection in jury trials where jurors have no agency beyond making a decision about what's presented to them. Going by the numbers in the OP, members of the executive council would have terms of 7 years, and members of the legislature would have terms of up to 10 years. How the heck do you manage that with a crew randomly selected from the population?

This is where the civil service comes in. How on earth does government work when an ignorant president like Trump gets in charge? Has the guy read a book in his adult life? Does he know anything about anything even though he thinks he knows everything about everything?

I think the average citizen would have more wisdom than Trump. Wisdom in this context is not technical expertise in all these subjects, but the wisdom to listen to the technical expertise and then know that they are starting a 9-month or 2-year enquiry into them. It's about the democratic conversation coming out in the open, and various policy alternatives being discussed.

Civil servants have the expertise to make the systems of government work, and advise the sortition members of Parliament as situations arose.

Even getting people to serve on a jury is a struggle, and they typically only serve for a few days. These folks would, essentially, have to give up their careers, and quite possibly their homes, for a decade or longer.

It will be interesting to see who accepted the role then. Many would be idealists. Some would be flattered, and it would be way above their normal pay grade. Get these people probably have more wisdom and relate to the common man better than many of the rich boys club currently in power.

The question is, as crazy decisions are being made across America now, is the current system really serving America better than sortician wood? How much power to lobbyists have to buy politicians? How is it that Trump was able to give billionaires tax cuts when this means another 16 million people are going to be kicked off Medicaid from the bottom of the healthcare ladder?

My guess is the average man and woman off the street would consider policies like that obscene!

 

[iluvatar5150]

They would be listening to the experts. How often are politicians actually trained engineers, doctors, scientists, or climate scientists?

Ok, so instead of professional legislators being influenced by lobbyists, we’d have randos being influenced by lobbyists. Because that’s who the “experts” are.

 

[eclipsenow]

Ok, so instead of professional legislators being influenced by lobbyists, we’d have randos being influenced by lobbyists. Because that’s who the “experts” are.

1. A DEGREE IN POLITICAL THEORY OR SOMETHING?
What do you mean by "Professional Legislators" - they need a degree or something? Otherwise - you must be talking about those smoother politicians that have probably moved from a law degree into politics because they thought a political salary was big money. They're in it for themselves. They've had a background in debating in high school, and then stepped it up a notch as a lawyer. Now they pretend to care about this or that cause - but flip flop on any wind of a popular cause from the latest focus group.

Society isn't really served by smooth talking flip-floppers only interested in it for their career. That's self-serving. If they were aware that they did not have to be ELECTED, did not have to be POPULAR, and only had a certain amount of time to serve - they might mouth off less BS and actually engage the topics for real! IF it's in their particular department's mission statement.

If you are genuinely concerned about the quality of potential candidates - maybe they need to at least have a degree - and have done a component in civics at least. There could even be low pressure night-school or online courses people could chip away at over time after their degree to understand basic civis.


2. LOBBYISTS
I'm glad you admit these so called 'professional legislators' are influenced by lobbyists. That's a start - because many cannot see the influence of Big Oil on anti-climate legislation. PBS's "Frontline" has a 90 minute doco on the power of Big Oil and Big Coal to corrupt politics. Their lobbying efforts are well documented, and overturned efforts towards the BTU Tax - despite Exxon's own climate scientists confirming climate change was an existential challenge to civilisation itself - way back in the 1980's!

Instead of lobbyists with all their money buying loyalty, or using all their money to alarm vote-seeking politicians into silence (because - they're 'career politicians' and need to stay popular or they'll lose their job!) - these Sortition Representatives are NOT dependent on popularity. They are NOT there for a career. They are there for a prescribed and limited time, and don't have to do all that dirty fundraising and baby-kissing. They're there out of a duty to serve. That's GOT to give them more confidence in actually listening to REAL experts!

3. EXPERTS
I disagree you'd have 'randos' being influenced by lobbyists. Other than technically being drawn from a random lottery - would they really be any more random than the current mob that get elected? What does a professional bodybuilder turned actor really know about California's taxation systems and policies? His skills were lifting heavy things, having big muscles and saying "I'll be back" in a menacing tone. What has that got to do with anything? But at least HE was wise enough to know we should listen to climate scientists - not like the current President who is influenced by his billionaire buddies in big oil. "Drill baby drill" when world oil demand is quickly declining with the rise of ever cheaper EV's - let alone the climate impacts? It's just denying reality! Tariffs on FRIENDS when he's worried about relying on China too much? It's driven the rest of the world into China's loving and POLITICALLY STABLE trading embrace! When Trump can double your tariffs because he got soap in his eyes in the shower - what kind of system have you got really? What kind of expertise? Adam Smith himself - the founder of modern economics - hated tariffs. Ronald Reagan ranted against them - spelling out their dangers in simple terms. Yet Trump hammed up how much it was "The most beautiful word in the English language - tariffs!" And people voted for him!

How has his real estate buddy Witkof got any expertise in international diplomacy? Anti-vaxxer RFK in charge of health?

And you talk to me about 'Randos!"? Wow - just wow.

 

[FireDragon76]

I can't imagine this system being effective in anything larger than a PTA or smallish town council, because it completely discounts the complexity of modern society and government as well as the amount of expertise required to legislate effectively.

That logic is often used to justify managerialism and overgrowth of bureaucracy, which in itself can become problematic if it leads to elites becoming isolated from the rest of society or captured by elite or monied interests.

Besides, it's not like ordinary people can't be educated in how to interact with expert opinion. The crucial thing, I believe, is re-establishing ordinary wisdom in government, and embracing principles like subsidiarity, letting sovereignty primarily reside with the lowest appropriate levels of governance. This is different than "big government" or "Small government" arguments, per se.

It's at least better than the system we have now in the US, which is fundamentally undemocratic and has become captured by monied interests.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ok, so instead of professional legislators being influenced by lobbyists, we’d have randos being influenced by lobbyists. Because that’s who the “experts” are.

The justification for democratic governance, from a Christian perspective, going back to its modern roots in English Dissenter thought, would be affirming the dignity of the individual through equal opportunity to a voice and representation, not because it's more "effective" necessarily.

 

[Nithavela]

Random? Someone would just rig the way people are determined to ensure that "his" people are in the majority.

Besides that, it only takes a small minority of extermists to take over a easily swayed majority. I don't think people with no knowledge of politics can be trusted with governing. Sure, you could "train" them, but who decides on how to train them? That person is the actual ruler.

 

[Hans Blaster]

why not just go all the way:

Franchise (short story) - Wikipedia

 

[eclipsenow]

Random? Someone would just rig the way people are determined to ensure that "his" people are in the majority.

Who is that 'someone' and how would they rig with a bunch of anti-corruption bodies scrutinizing the process?

Besides that, it only takes a small minority of extermists to take over a easily swayed majority.

1. Global opinion is this is what Trump and MAGA already are!

A small loud minority of extremists. Extremists that deny modern climate science, vaccines, and the social sciences on how illegal immigrants contribute far more to the economy than they take, and commit FAR less crime than the average native born American citizen!

2. The current system does not represent or involve the proverbial average 'little guy' - but instead represents Big Oil and the crazed extremes of the racist underbelly in most nations. The sheer money involved in getting elected is eye-wateringly out of control in Australia - LET ALONE the absurd amounts of money it takes to get elected in America! America is suffering 'State Capture' by many big corporations. Trump cutting Medicaid so bad that another 16 million Americans will be kicked off healthcare insurance - while giving MASSIVE tax cuts to billionaires - is just another example of this.

I don't think people with no knowledge of politics can be trusted with governing.

How does anyone become a politician in your country? Are you implying they have to do a degree in civics or something? EG: What do you think a guy with a real estate background knows about governing?

Sure, you could "train" them, but who decides on how to train them? That person is the actual ruler.

How does anyone becoming a politician in your country today learn the ropes of what to do, where to go, what the rules and process of the House and Senate are, etc. Those teachers are the actual leaders.

 

[eclipsenow]

why not just go all the way:

Franchise (short story) - Wikipedia

I don't think I've read that Asimov - and I'm a fan! I'll take a note of it for later.

VOTING replaced by RANDOM SELECTION OF DEMOS
I guess the obvious answer is Franchise appears to be a mockery of an electoral system, where Sortition does not even mock it, but replaces it with a large enough random representation of the demos to serve as a representative snapshot of society. It's an attempt to make the process more transparent and less impacted by big money.

ELECTION PASSIONS replaced by BORING METHODICAL SELECTION
It's also acknowledging the increasingly dangerous and divisive passions and misinformation campaigns that voting seasons regularly inflict on society - especially in a society dominated by gun culture. This week it's a YouTuber - a while ago it was some representatives. Who next? Social media isn't going away. Echo chambers remain all powerful, entrenching people in their misinformation and positions. The other party are not fellow citizens with a frustrating policy on xyz issues - but are the ENEMY.

Sortition might just rob some of the crazy passions around all this - and bring society back to quieter debates on the facts. I hope.

 

[Nithavela]

Who is that 'someone' and how would they rig with a bunch of anti-corruption bodies scrutinizing the process?

Anti-corruption bodies? I don't see how they wouldn't become corrupt or powerless themselves.

How does anyone become a politician in your country? Are you implying they have to do a degree in civics or something? EG: What do you think a guy with a real estate background knows about governing?



How does anyone becoming a politician in your country today learn the ropes of what to do, where to go, what the rules and process of the House and Senate are, etc. Those teachers are the actual leaders.

Most start at a regional level and move up in their party and on a state, then federal level. And there's a degree or even phd involved more often than not.

If you think that my arguments are so stupid that they require a "slap yourself in the face" emoji, I suggest no longer engaging with them.

 

[eclipsenow]

Most start at a regional level and move up in their party and on a state,

Hi Nithavela,
I should thank you for your input and for challenging some of my assumptions. Your replies forced me to google some things, and I've learned some stuff. (I love it when that happens - even if I'm partially wrong!)

FIRST TIMERS
It seems the majority of American State legislative members are first timers. Who teaches them what to do? Are these teachers of State representatives the rulers in the State legislators? In other words - if we are going to trust civil servants of some sort to guide "first timers" through States - some of which (like California) have populations larger than Australia(!) - then why not Federally?

FEDERAL IS DIFFERENT IN USA THAN AUSTRALIA
Apparently we have only something like 8% of our Federal Parliamentarians and Senators coming from State government or previous political experience. It seems to be much higher in the USA than Australia - more like 80%! So I grant there is a "political class" in America. As the New York Times 2019 says:-

"Only 20 percent of House members did not hold previous political office before entering Congress."​

(The same article said the 116th Congress was only 60% - so 40% first timers.)

But is a political class a good thing for representative democracy? Who are they representing? And why so many lawyers?

The NYT again:-

The United States does not grant titles of nobility. There are no lords, barons or dukes here. At least, not officially.​

​

Unofficially, however, Congress is made up of people who have credentials and experiences vastly different from those of most citizens. Unofficially, considering education, career, family background and personal wealth, it seems that America has a ruling class — or at least a limited number of ways to enter the halls of power.​

​

Here, we’ve traced the pre-congressional career of every House member in the 116th Congress, showing the narrow but well-trodden paths through prestigious schools, lucrative jobs and local political offices that led the latest crop of legislators to Capitol Hill.​

​

The new House has a notable number of political novices, and more women and people of color than any Congress in history. But a majority of members, even the new ones, still made it to Washington by way of institutions and professions that are out of reach for most Americans.​

​

More than 70 percent of House members were lawyers in private practice, businesspeople (including employees in insurance, banking, finance and real estate) or medical professionals. That work can inform the types of bills they introduce, according to research by Katie Francis, a faculty member at Western Governors University. Doctors sponsor more health care legislation, for example.​

​

In part because Congress is filled with successful white-collar professionals, the House is much, much richer than the people it represents, and affluent politicians support legislation that benefits their own class at the expense of others. Wealthier legislators are, for instance, more likely to vote to repeal the estate tax.​

​

“The rosy notion that lawmakers from business and professional backgrounds want what is best for everyone is seriously out of line with the realities of legislative decision-making in the United States,” wrote Nicholas Carnes, a Duke professor of public policy, in his book “White-Collar Government.”​

EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Lawyers are about 1% of the voting population - but a full THIRD of Congress! Now I get that we might need more than the average number of lawyers - as it's a good foundation for understanding how government works. But surely a civics diploma could do that? Sortition could require all candidates to have a bachelors degree and maybe a 6 month civics diploma - just to get on the roll. It might encourage more of the population to be engaged and learn about civics, which can't be a bad thing.
We could even have a system that selects from a broad range of representation, requiring a certain number of spots be filled by certain degree candidates. EG: Imagine if 10% were required to have degrees in each of the following - rather than every third politician being a lawyer!
So - all would be represented:-

1. Law & Governance,
2. Medicine & Health Sciences,
3. Engineering & Technology,
4. Natural & Environmental Sciences,
5. Economics, Business & Finance,
6. Education & Social Sciences,
7. Agriculture & Food Systems,
8. Arts, Humanities & Communication,
9. Defence, Security & Public Safety,
10. STEM Research & Advanced Sciences.

It's not about specifying which sub-branches of each - but generally to have a more balanced grouping.

In this way, Sortition could not only represent a fairer distribution of the University educated population, but also represent a fairer distribution of human knowledge! And that's just the politicians - that's BEFORE they then also call on experts qualified in the specific matters of the discussion of the day!

 

[Nithavela]

Hi Nithavela,
I should thank you for your input and for challenging some of my assumptions. Your replies forced me to google some things, and I've learned some stuff. (I love it when that happens - even if I'm partially wrong!)

FIRST TIMERS
It seems the majority of American State legislative members are first timers. Who teaches them what to do? Are these teachers of State representatives the rulers in the State legislators? In other words - if we are going to trust civil servants of some sort to guide "first timers" through States - some of which (like California) have populations larger than Australia(!) - then why not Federally?

FEDERAL IS DIFFERENT IN USA THAN AUSTRALIA
Apparently we have only something like 8% of our Federal Parliamentarians and Senators coming from State government or previous political experience. It seems to be much higher in the USA than Australia - more like 80%! So I grant there is a "political class" in America. As the New York Times 2019 says:-

"Only 20 percent of House members did not hold previous political office before entering Congress."​

(The same article said the 116th Congress was only 60% - so 40% first timers.)

But is a political class a good thing for representative democracy? Who are they representing? And why so many lawyers?

The NYT again:-

The United States does not grant titles of nobility. There are no lords, barons or dukes here. At least, not officially.​

​

Unofficially, however, Congress is made up of people who have credentials and experiences vastly different from those of most citizens. Unofficially, considering education, career, family background and personal wealth, it seems that America has a ruling class — or at least a limited number of ways to enter the halls of power.​

​

Here, we’ve traced the pre-congressional career of every House member in the 116th Congress, showing the narrow but well-trodden paths through prestigious schools, lucrative jobs and local political offices that led the latest crop of legislators to Capitol Hill.​

​

The new House has a notable number of political novices, and more women and people of color than any Congress in history. But a majority of members, even the new ones, still made it to Washington by way of institutions and professions that are out of reach for most Americans.​

​

More than 70 percent of House members were lawyers in private practice, businesspeople (including employees in insurance, banking, finance and real estate) or medical professionals. That work can inform the types of bills they introduce, according to research by Katie Francis, a faculty member at Western Governors University. Doctors sponsor more health care legislation, for example.​

​

In part because Congress is filled with successful white-collar professionals, the House is much, much richer than the people it represents, and affluent politicians support legislation that benefits their own class at the expense of others. Wealthier legislators are, for instance, more likely to vote to repeal the estate tax.​

​

“The rosy notion that lawmakers from business and professional backgrounds want what is best for everyone is seriously out of line with the realities of legislative decision-making in the United States,” wrote Nicholas Carnes, a Duke professor of public policy, in his book “White-Collar Government.”​

EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Lawyers are about 1% of the voting population - but a full THIRD of Congress! Now I get that we might need more than the average number of lawyers - as it's a good foundation for understanding how government works. But surely a civics diploma could do that? Sortition could require all candidates to have a bachelors degree and maybe a 6 month civics diploma - just to get on the roll. It might encourage more of the population to be engaged and learn about civics, which can't be a bad thing.
We could even have a system that selects from a broad range of representation, requiring a certain number of spots be filled by certain degree candidates. EG: Imagine if 10% were required to have degrees in each of the following - rather than every third politician being a lawyer!
So - all would be represented:-

1. Law & Governance,
2. Medicine & Health Sciences,
3. Engineering & Technology,
4. Natural & Environmental Sciences,
5. Economics, Business & Finance,
6. Education & Social Sciences,
7. Agriculture & Food Systems,
8. Arts, Humanities & Communication,
9. Defence, Security & Public Safety,
10. STEM Research & Advanced Sciences.

It's not about specifying which sub-branches of each - but generally to have a more balanced grouping.

In this way, Sortition could not only represent a fairer distribution of the University educated population, but also represent a fairer distribution of human knowledge! And that's just the politicians - that's BEFORE they then also call on experts qualified in the specific matters of the discussion of the day!

It sounds like you are arguing for a technocracy, where only those with a university degree have a place in leadership. Do I understand you correctly?

 

[eclipsenow]

It sounds like you are arguing for a technocracy, where only those with a university degree have a place in leadership. Do I understand you correctly?

Aren't you the one that was arguing for a professional class of politician? The most had PhDs?

Sortition is the exact sort of thing that could defeat a technocracy. We're currently heading towards a technocracy with billionaires like Elon Musk buying x and filtering the algorithm. X was definitely part of the reason MAGA won the last election.

And in the brexit debate in the UK, the technocratic influence was felt when Cambridge analytica used Facebook data to track and mislead the UK's alternative right. The technocrats are winning in the current system! This person raised the fact that we'd be run by technocrats under this other model

And that's in a system where 66% of the population did not vote for Donald Trump!

A third didn't vote at all.

Another third didn't vote for Trump.

So only a third DID vote for Trump. And yet the majority have to live with the consequences of having a president with narcissistic personality disorder in the oval Office? How is that fair?

How is that even a democracy?!

 

[Nithavela]

Aren't you the one that was arguing for a professional class of politician? The most had PhDs?

No.

 

[eclipsenow]

Most start at a regional level and move up in their party and on a state, then federal level. And there's a degree or even phd involved more often than not.

I thought you were concerned about losing 'professional politicians' and your statement here indicates that you value education.

As the NYT article I quoted shows - the current system is already heavily weighted towards the more privileged white collar class. I guess having a Sortition lottery specifically require a bachelor's degree and civics diploma would at least make the statement that this nation valued education, and would not be run by buffoons. I don't see how that makes it a 'technocracy'. You should explain what you mean.

 

[jacks]

I like the idea. Perhaps a pilot case of just a city or county, would help reveal potential problems and solutions.