Politics

11623 readers

29 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Is democracy without elections possible? Could a lottery be better? (aeon.co)

submitted 1 week ago by alyaza@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For most people today, public elections are synonymous with democracy. However, between 508 and 322 BCE, Athenians favoured a lottery system known as ‘sortition’. They largely believed it to be more fair, representative and responsive to the public interest than elections, which are often influenced by money and can foster destructive political polarisation. In this animation, Michael Vazquez, associate director of the Parr Center for Ethics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, breaks down both the potential of lottery-based systems and their limits. In particular, he highlights an updated lottery system conceived by the US philosopher Alex Guerrero, designed to address flaws in earlier models and some of the most pressing problems in contemporary electoral politics.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 2 points 6 days ago

I like this and think it would be a big improvement over the current system. However, I do see some potential problems:

These senators would be normal people only on their first day. Once they are an important person with power and money, they will change. Your work buddy that gets promoted to supervisor suddenly becomes a dick. Imagine they got promoted to senator. Their needs and incentives will no longer be the same and they won't be able to represent their previous life as well.
The first year being silenced and mentored by a senior senator exacerbates this problem. When they are most close to the common person, they will be least powerful. I would expect the senior senator to represent the needs of a retiring senator and to influence the new senator to do the same. If anything, they should be most influencial their first year and silenced their last year.
A former senator is unlikely to return to normal life. They spent a decade being highly paid and powerful. If they were a truck driver before, they aren't going to return to driving trucks. They're going to get book deals, start a consulting firm, etc. I would expect the sitting senators to shape society to that end so they can retire comfortably when their term is up. You would end up with a class of sitting/former senators and the normal people.
Who gets included in this lottery? A reasonable answer would be "citizens". We've seen the path to citizenship made harder in recent years. It could selectively be made harder for certain immigrants. A Norwegian immigrant would have an easier and quicker time gaining citizenship than a Venezuelan refugee. Would there be a minimum or maximum age for the lottery? Should non-citizens with permanent residence get in?
With no elections, I would expect the senators to be relatively unresponsive to public pressure. Also, with no voting or way to participate in political matters, I would expect the average person to feel like powerless subjects rather than vocal advocates.
I would expect the senators to be more susceptible to lobbying, not less. The public can't influence me, but this oil company might be in need of a consultant once my term is up.

Like I said, I still think this would be an improvement, but I think you're making a mistake in thinking that people will bring their values with them once they become senator. I think our values are highly shaped by our incentives and the incentives of a senator will change their values.