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.
The current money-dependent system is an education in itself of how to be sweet talked and wooed and actively hunt out lobbyists so the candidate even has a chance to get the money to construct a full time (but temporary) business in "How to get my brand out there, and get myself elected!" Even if it means compromising on the candidates actual ideals!
I think that such skills can only be taught to a certain limit and have to be developed by hands-on experience.
See above.
Ideally in a lower branch of government, where mistakes are less costly and there are higher-ups that can impart knowledge and prevent mistakes.
The broader civil service will be there to reduce the mistakes.
No decisions or laws will be made without extensive public debate.
And probably half of today's job-description of a 'politician' - the work to be elected, popular, bring in money, know hot to deliver a killer public speech with clever rhetoric etc, will simply vanish. Today's politicians are 'electioneerers' as well as policy developers. They're often bound by party politicise and cannot speak freely - because without the broader party support - they might miss out on the mechanics of the electioneering support.
Sortition frees up the candidate to actually focus on the POLICIES they are developing for the public good, not just practicing the party lines and sound-bytes for that time wasting fundraiser they have to get to!
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.
I didn't mean to - I just heard you mention it in the context of valuing 'professional politicians'.
Given the way Elon Musk and X featured in the last election - I'm struggling to see how the current system is not already part technocracy.
There is no need to put technocracy into scare quotes.
There is if it detracts from democracy.
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.
Do you think the majority of the population are actually getting what they want from the current system? MAGA are in - tariffs are up - long term allies are annoyed - masked men grab people from the street just for looking ethnic, etc etc etc.
Did they get to vote on each of these policies now the Republic of America has voted in Trump?
America only really has 2 functional parties - and from what I'm hearing many vote without wholeheartedly endorsing even maybe 70% of what their party is for.
And as the statistics show above, how is it better to have a third of candidates be lawyers - and everyone from a high income, privileged, white collar background?
At least sortition would bring in a much greater
diversity of the population to represent it!
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.
True - but if it really IS for the greater good of the population - like solving climate change and preventing WW3 - then maybe those actions SHOULD be taken because the public are too dense to comprehend them? It's not my fault such a large minority of Americans choose to go along with the disinformation campaigns funded by Big Oil!
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.
OK - I did not see that coming! You surprise me - and it's great to have a chat with some nuanced perspectives! You can see from my previous paragraph above that I was getting defensive about
my own version of Sortition where I personally prefer a University Degree and Civics Diploma to qualify for the candidate pool. That's
mine - where generally Sortition advocates want the burger flipper to have a right to be in the pool to sit in Parliament as well.
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,
America is already there - on the verge of civil unrest.
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.
If we spread the Sortition "Sort" - there could be a new member being drawn every month. That turnover would gradually, incrementally, and continually bring in a fresh perspective straight from the streets. This prevents a distant political class developing that can feel immune and entitled. More of the general population would be educated about the system - as to go into the pool requires that Civics Diploma.
Personally, I'm aghast at the way politics is shifting towards an entitled and elite group. We all seem astonished if someone
authentic and honest gets elected! Cynicism is up, engagement down - at an all time intergenerational high! People are even abandoning their belief in democracy and prefer the idea of an autocratic leader - as long as the leader is from 'their side'.
I'd love to see one modern democratic nation give it a go - even if it had a sunset clause built into it. They could have a guaranteed referendum about it after 20 years.
