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

[Nithavela]

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.

I value political experience. Education is a nice bonus and certainly often helpful, but knowing how to govern, how to lead people, how to not be influenced by sweet-talking lobbyists or shrewd leaders of other nations is more important in my opinion. I think that such skills can only be taught to a certain limit and have to be developed by hands-on experience. Ideally in a lower branch of government, where mistakes are less costly and there are higher-ups that can impart knowledge and prevent mistakes. My statement that in germany, a lot of politicians are well-educated and often have a PhD was descriptive, not prescriptive. You asked me, don't twist my words and act like I view the situation in my home country as ideal.

There is no need to put technocracy into scare quotes. A technocracy means that a nation is run by experts chosen for their skills, who then govern according to scientific, neutral standards that are supposed to yield optimal results, even if they run counter to the wishes of the majority of the population. For example, if Action A would be required for good long term results, but would be wildly unpopular with the population, then action A could still be taken by a technocracy, while a democratic government might shy away from it because taking Action A might result in them being voted out of office before the good long term results materialise.

I know that the term is used in a negative manner in today's parlance, but the idea behind it is solid, and many countries like china and singapore have greatly benefited from technocratic governments. There is the danger of the divide between government and population getting so wide that the government either loses sight of the neccessary short term actions to support the population until the long term benefits materialise, resulting in civil unrest and general problems, or the government might be blinded by it's own vision or unreliable reports, founding their ideas on faulty data or unsound theories while the general population can feel the negative effects keenly and would correct the situation in a democratic election.