this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2026
-2 points (33.3% liked)

Political Discussion and Commentary

1624 readers
13 users here now

A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!

The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.

Content Rules:

  1. Self posts preferred.
  2. Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
  3. No spam or self promotion.
  4. Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.

Commentary Rules

  1. Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
  2. Stay on topic.
  3. Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
  4. Provide credible sources whenever possible.
  5. Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
  6. Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
  7. Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).

Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.

Partnered Communities:

Politics

Science

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The simple fact is that it is often easier to hoodwink a large group than a smaller, more invested group. The voters as a collective are that large group. In addition, with the spoiler effect, it is hard for voters to express their true opinion. Even when an alternative to first-past-the-post voting is used, that effect is still there, but reduced. When parties are elected instead of representatives, the problem is that parties, like representatives, can lie and not do what they promised. In addition, political parties and elected representatives are inherently partisan.

With voting, many remain rationally ignorant and do not vote. After all, a single voter rarely is the deciding factor; the voters know this, so many do not bother with voting.

While direct democracy appears like a viable alternative, it is not since it is difficult to get an issue on the ballot, and the voters cannot decide all the minutiae as they lack the bandwidth.

With sortition there is no active effort on the part of the electorate, unlike voting. The electorate can remain rationally ignorant and put forth no effort. For those that are selected through sortition, they will have a real incentive to be knowledgeable and care.

Imagine that you are selected at random to represent a district in a legislature and it comes with a high salary. No campaigning pressure, no donors are needed, and no pressure from an electorate. You could focus solely on what policies are the most beneficial to your constituents while not worrying about your popularity with anyone.

It has been said that those who seek power should be the last ones to hold it, and sortition acknowledges this reality.

Theories are great, but there needs to be a spark. The fundamental problem is not whether or not sortition works or how it would work, but actually getting sortition adopted. The catch-22 is that the same broken system that needs to be fixed is the same system that would need to vote themselves out with sortition. Since no place has sortition, people do not know what they are missing out on.

The solution: use direct democracy where it can be done. For instance, Nebraska has a unicameral state legislature, while every other state is bicameral. It was only possible to do so, as in Nebraska, voters can amend the state's constitution without the legislature's consent. There is no structural reason why the same could not turn one chamber of a state legislature into a sortition-based one.

With even one chamber of one state legislature changed, that could be the catalyst to bring sortition into the mainstream.

My flavor of sortition is delegated sortition. In delegated sortition, you would have approximately equally populous districts. A number of eligible voters would be selected at random for that district. They form that district's sortition board. With a majority vote, the sortition board selects that district's representative for that term. The sortition board then dissolves. This happens across all the districts. A representative can be reappointed or changed out in the next term.

While there will be some flukes here and there, overall it would allow the representatives to be much more aligned with their constituency. This is as close as you can get to every voter directly deciding on everything.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

This reads like AI. Is it?

Also, rather than randomly selecting a selection committee, just randomly select a rep. And give people the option of voting them out, rolling the dice on another random rep.

[–] SortitionTroll@lemmy.today 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

No, this was not written by AI; I wrote it myself. The purpose of the sortition board is to simulate an election, but have a small enough group as to not fall victim to the spoiler effect and rational ignorance. This acts as a filter to ensure that the person selected has at least some support. This maintains representative democracy.

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Right, I understood that. I guess I don't see the value in positive selection over negative selection. I don't see what problem it solves. Representatives represent people because we say they do. It doesn't matter how many people chose them, they still represent all the people who didn't.

[–] SortitionTroll@lemmy.today 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The point is that with a large electorate many people do not vote and are rationally ignorant. One vote very rarely is what changes an election outcome.

In addition, there is a coordination problem with a large electorate. Only two or a few options can be seriously considered. Say there are three candidates in a race: A, B, C. Some want candidate C, but they are a third party. Thus, if C voters prefer B to A they can end up with A elected as C siphons off votes. This enforces two-party dominance.

With a sortition board, they avoid the all of that as they can deliberate until a choice is reached.

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

You seem to be missing what I'm saying, and arguing against someone you're imagining.

I'll give you another chance to argue with what me. Go back andread what I wrote again. Then explain what your system does better than mine and how that matters.

[–] Pfeffy@lemmy.world 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Too stupid to be AI. This guy probably doctored a response he got from AI.

[–] Steve@communick.news -1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

That's uncalled for.
Try to be constructive.

[–] Pfeffy@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

No, I don't think I'm going to try to be productive when somebody presents me with word vomit.

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 18 hours ago

*Constructive

You could step over the vomit, or around it