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.....