Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Sortition
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Sortition  (Read 9844 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

raytom

  • Guest
Sortition
« on: July 21, 2009, 06:02:04 PM »

This was written by Yoram Gat- Dont know who he is but this is a good primer for Sortition- Twice it has been proposed that the US House of Representatives be changed to the sortitional method of selecting representatives.
Comments on Sortition Welcome!!


Sortition

A Democratic Alternative to Elections


Legislative bodies are selected through elections in all modern democratic countries. In view of this rule, to which there is not even a single exception, one might presume that elections are the only democratic method to select a legislative assembly. Such a presumption would be wrong. There is another democratic method to select legislators, a method that was used widely in the past (and was in fact considered more democratic than elections), but is almost completely forgotten today.

The alternative method is called sortition [1]. Sortition is the method of selecting the legislators by drawing lots among all the citizens. Those citizens whose names are drawn serve as legislators for a fixed period, as is the common practice with elected legislators. [2]

My goal here is to describe briefly the characteristics of the sortition method and to compare it to the method of elections. But first, due to the possibility that the idea of sortition seems fantastical to the modern reader, here are two historical facts:

1. The legislative work in the Athenian democracy was carried out by two bodies – the Assembly which consisted of all Athenian citizens, and the Council, which consisted of a few hundred citizens chosen for a period of one year through sortition. In Athens, the use of elections was reserved for a small number of positions, such as generals – positions that were considered as requiring specialized skills or talents. Sortition was used in other Greek democracies as well and in a more limited fashion in the Italian republics of Florence and Venice. [3]

2. Philosophers of politics, from antiquity (Aristotle) to the 18th century (Rousseau, Montesquieu) discussed sortition. When compared to elections, sortition was considered the more democratic of the two methods and elections was considered the more oligarchic. As they saw things, sortition tends to put more governing power into the hands of the average citizen, while elections tend to concentrate power in the hands of a small set of distinguished people. [4]

Sortition


The essential characteristic of a legislative body selected through sortition is that it has a statistical resemblance to the population from which it was drawn: the proportion of women, lawyers, minorities, homosexuals, millionaires and day laborers in the body will be similar to their proportion in the population. In general, the proportion of members who belong to a certain group, who subscribe to a certain political opinion, or who follow a certain pattern of behavior will be similar to the proportion in the population. The rule is the same one used in opinion polling – a sample drawn at random from a population is unlikely to be substantially different from the entire population regarding with respect to any given criterion.

This characteristic – the distributive resemblance – assures that the legislative body will be a reflection of the people: if the people are mostly reasonably honest and skillful, so will be the legislators. On the other hand, if the people are mostly corrupt or incompetent, the legislators will not be any better.

The trouble with elections


According to the ideal elections scenario, honest and competent people become well known for being honest and competent, and, as such, are elected by the public as its legislators. In such an ideal situation, the legislative body is better than the public as a whole, and despite the fact that the legislators are unlike most of the public (they are, if nothing else, more honest and competent than normal people), the legislators are able – due to their superior wisdom – to understand the needs and wishes of the public and to promote them [5]. In other words, according to the ideal scenario, elections do indeed tend to concentrate the governing power in the hands of an oligarchy (exactly as the classical philosophers described), but since it is an oligarchy of honesty and competency (as opposed to oligarchy of wealth, nobility or access to the means of violence), then it is an oligarchy that serves the public interest. Such an oligarchy, it is argued, should be embraced. [6]

This ideal scenario may materialize, at least in an approximate form, as long as the number of voters is small – no more than a few dozen people. In such a small group all the voters know each other well and can therefore perceive the character and faculties of each candidate fairly accurately. In such a situation the decision who to vote for is rational and may bring about positive outcomes.

However, when the number of voters is large things are very different. When there are hundreds, thousands or millions of voters, elections, even those elections which would be recognized as free and fair, tend to generate legislators who are rich, well connected and devious. Not only are the skills and honesty of the elected not better than those of the average citizen, they are actually far worse.

There are several reasons for this poor state of affairs. Some of those are due to imperfections of the present implementation of the elections method and may be remedied. Others, however, are inherent to the elections method itself. Essentially, the two characteristics of the method which cause the election of people who do disservice to the public are:

1. In order to become a credible candidate a person has to be well-known. Few people, if any, would vote for a person of whom they have never heard, while there are quite a number of people who would be willing to vote for a person about whom they know very little apart from his or her name. Therefore, a candidate who is not known by a large part of the public cannot be elected.

The number of well-known people is limited, and they tend to be people with unusual skills and background: as mentioned above, they are usually richer than the average citizen, and they are better than average at self-promotion. They have also been unusually successful socially and politically. The group of potentially credible candidates is therefore small and restricted to people who are likely to be different than most of the pubic both in their objective situation and in their world view.

2. When the group of voters is large, most voters must vote for someone whom they never met, and certainly do not know personally. Under such circumstances, how can they know what are the candidates’ skills and characters? The voters learn about the candidates using only information transmitted via the mass media – either in political ads or in articles and interviews. Therefore, the ability of most voters to truly know the candidates is extremely limited and their view of the candidates is determined crucially by the way they are portrayed by partisan operators. The door is wide open for people with control over media content (either through the purchase of ad spots, or through influence on journalists and editors) to attract votes by creating a false appearance of competency and honesty.

Indeed, it is hard to detect in the reality of modern democratic countries any resemblance to the ideal scenario of elections. Much of the public has noticed that the elected are mostly busy promoting their own interests and those of people like them (and since most of the public does not fall into this category, the majority’s interests are neglected.) [7] The supporters of the elections system would tell the frustrated pubic: “If this is so, throw out the corrupt politicians and take others in their stead.” However, there is no person whom most of the public knows well enough to be able to vote for with a rational expectation of having that person serve the public well. While every citizen probably knows at least one or two people they appreciate enough to trust with a seat in the legislating body, being appreciated by your acquaintances does not get a person significantly closer to being a legislator since no one is acquainted with tens or hundreds of thousands of people, and having a lower number of supporters is not sufficient to obtain a legislator seat.

Conclusion


In the 18th century, when the first modern democracies were created, it was common among educated people to consider the average person as being senseless, and it was therefore accepted that one of the functions of government is to prevent the exercise of the will of that senseless majority. Some of the framers of the American constitution did not hesitate to state such ideas on public record. Under these assumptions, elections are the natural procedure to select legislators: the 18th century constitutions, which relied on elections, were taking only one step away from the prevailing state (oligarchy or monarchy) toward a democracy, a step that was carefully designed not to place governing power in the hands of the average citizen [8]. These days, on the other hand, the assumption has changed – at least in official and public discourse – and it is customary to attribute rationality to the public and maintain that the government’s role is precisely to carry out the will of the public. Sortition is the natural representation method stemming from these present-day professed beliefs.

Sortition gives up the dream of having legislators who are better than the public but gains in return a legislating body that reflects the public in its composition and whose members understand the needs and wishes of the public. With such a body there is a possibility, and arguably a likelihood, that most of its members would do their best to promote the public’s well-being. It is sortition, rather than elections, that gives the people the rulers they deserve – rulers in their own image.






Footnotes:


1. The only modern book (as far as I know) that deals with sortition in detail is Bernard Manin’s The Principles of Representative Government (Cambridge University Press, 1997). Many of the ideas and the data here originate in that book. Another book that deals with sortition – it is, in fact, a call to use sortition for selecting the members of the US house of representatives – is Calenbach and Philips’s Citizen Legislature (Banyan Tree Books / Cedar Glass, 1985).
2. Sortition can be viewed as a variation on the idea of rotation. In the rotation system every group member serves in office for a fixed time period. When the group is large, the rotation cannot be completed. Those members whose names were drawn in the lottery are those whose luck it was to be first in the rotation.
3. See Manin, Principles of Representative Government. Aristotle describes the use of sortition in Athens in his book The Athenian Constitution.
4. Aristotle, Politics, book IV, section 9. Montesquieu, The spirit of the laws, book II, section 2. Rousseau, The Social Contract, book IV, section 3.
5. The ideal scenario is present in the background when democratic elections are discussed, but it is difficult to find an explicit answer in those discussions to the critical question of what is exactly the process by which skillful and honest people become credible candidates able to draw large numbers of votes. It is implied that this occurs spontaneously. The Federalist Papers, for example, touch briefly on this topic: “Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people.” (The Federalist Papers #57) A description of the mechanism by which the members of the public are to learn about the merits of their fellow citizens is omitted.
6. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a famous paragraph from a 1813 letter to John Adams: “[T]here is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. [...] May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?”
7. In the United States, for example, a February 2006 poll showed that about 80% of the public thinks that bribery is common practice in Congress. Opinion polls also show that congress rarely has the approval of a majority of the population, and quite frequently has its disapproval rating higher than its approval rating. See http://www.pollingreport.com.
8. See, for example, Alexander Hamilton in Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention, Vol I, page 299, and James Madison, in the same volume, page 431. Edmund Burk expressed similar thoughts in Reflections on the French Revolution, paragraphs 80-81, as did Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyes in Reasoned Exposition of the Rights of Man and Citizen, with his notions of “active” and “passive” citizens.
Logged

BonerJoe

  • Guest
Re: Sortition
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2009, 06:04:56 PM »

wat
Logged

libertylover

  • No Title Needed
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3791
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2009, 06:18:07 PM »

At first glace it reminds me of a short story about the President being selected by a lottery.  The winner one time was insane and played a game of chicken with his Russian counter part with nuclear arms.  He scared the crap out of the USSR and they agreed to concessions.

I have to read all of it though.
Logged

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2009, 11:47:45 PM »

WTF?
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard

libertylover

  • No Title Needed
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3791
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2009, 10:06:44 AM »

On one hand you would not have the problem of people in office spending most of their time looking for donations so they could win re-election.  Campaign contributions which make the politician end up owing political favors to the people that helped to get them into office.

Now on the other hand it would be a crap shoot as to who you would get.  Much like today's jury duty.  It might be raft with the uneducated and the easily manipulated by lobbiest.  Educated individuals who make more in the private sector would attempt to avoid service.  While political extremest would seek to use it as an opportunity to push their agenda even if it was in stark contrast to the desires of the population.   It could end up being a good cross section of representation or it could end up being stacked.  And who would supervise to make sure the process wasn't rigged.  I realize rigging is a potential problem in our current system as well. 

I will have to admit it is an extremely interesting idea.  Would people be willing to accept they are being represented by lottery? 

I remembered the story about selecting elected officials via a lottery system.  It was part of the movie version of, "Harrison Bergeron" there is a copy of the movie here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-175006468841636088
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2009, 09:13:28 PM »

Just wait till this guy gets picked:
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2009, 05:51:27 PM »

Just another way to "improve" political slavery so people can go another 200 years or so without realizing they are enslaving one another.
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

Harry Tuttle

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
  • Please don't feed the elitists
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2009, 07:10:51 PM »

When criticizing legislators I often make the statement "we could pick the next 50 people who walk out of burger king and use them to replace the next 50 people that walk out the door at congress and we would end up with better legislators."

To that extent, I agree with the concept.

Still, I would rather that nobody have that level of authority over others.

Logged
"If you're giving up your freedom to have freedom you don't have freedom, dummy."              - Mark Edge (10/11/08 show)

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2009, 09:26:27 AM »

I'm reminded of Hanse Hermann Hoppe's book, "Democracy: The God That Failed"

Turns out that the more "temporary" the legislators are, the more pronounced the Public Choice and Tragedy Of The Commons effects are. They are ever more motivated to be self-centered bastards who will take anything and everything they can grab for themselves, damn the repercussions.

So I see the problem not one of how people are chosen to wield power, but the wielding of power itself that must be addressed, and eliminated.
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

Siddhartha

  • Guest
Re: Sortition
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2009, 10:23:04 AM »

Just wait till this guy gets picked:

If we have a Republic which our basic unalienable rights can't be carved down by popular vote or elitists in popular vote masks, I'd welcome anyone in the sortition scenario, including your example.

Looks are deceiving.
Logged

Harry Tuttle

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
  • Please don't feed the elitists
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2009, 08:25:27 PM »

So I see the problem not one of how people are chosen to wield power, but the wielding of power itself that must be addressed, and eliminated.

Precisely! If only there were some kind of document that specifically limited the powers of the government officials and limit the effects of their influence...
Logged
"If you're giving up your freedom to have freedom you don't have freedom, dummy."              - Mark Edge (10/11/08 show)

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2009, 05:39:32 AM »

So I see the problem not one of how people are chosen to wield power, but the wielding of power itself that must be addressed, and eliminated.

Precisely! If only there were some kind of document that specifically limited the powers of the government officials and limit the effects of their influence...

Society ends up with the type of governments that the market demands. Democracy is just one of a number of ways to measure and respond to this demand. Democracy is neither inherently good nor evil in terms of the governments that it provides. Its primary virtue is that it does so by non-violent means, but it's no guarantee that the resulting governments will rule by the consent of the governed.

I approve of democracy because it does make it possible the peaceful transition to a voluntary society, should the demand for liberty ever become sufficient.

The alternative is agorism, where a minority engages in black market activity until it amasses sufficient economic and military clout to overthrow the state.

The problem here is that, first of all, the groups that tend to be more successful at this tend to be violent criminal organisations and even if only principled people engaged in this, they would need to continuously engage in defensive armed conflict.

Secondly, they would have to overthrow the state and, somehow, impose free markets on an unwilling populous. They wouldn't have popular support or the state would have already transformed itself out of existence democratically. There'd be nothing to overthrow.

Imposing liberty on a populous that's not ready for it is doomed to failure.

Carving out a libertarian niche like a "free state"(a contradiction in terms) may be more practical if you don't mind living in a small libertarian ghetto and if it manages to exist in peace with its statist neighbors it might set a good example for them to imitate, but it should do so democratically. An agorist approach would only result in internal struggle and invite war with its statist neighbors.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

Alex Libman 14

  • Guest
Re: Sortition
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2009, 08:26:41 AM »

Democracy sucks.

And absolute democracy sucks absolutely.
Logged

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2009, 09:29:25 AM »

Democracy sucks.

And absolute democracy sucks absolutely.


Then you must hate the market and you must love bloodshed.

Democracy is not, primarily, a system of governance, but the only known vehicle to change government, for better or worse, and even, possibly, to one day, eliminate the state altogether, without resorting to violence. When democracy fails, sooner or later, violence ensues.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

Manuel_OKelly

  • Objectivist
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1406
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2009, 10:19:32 AM »

How about we just make the congress a representative body where you just have to get 600,000 yet uncast 'votes' to gain a seat, regardless of regional, political, or other affiliation. Better yet let's keep our federal system since it's harder to change and just do this at the local level.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Sortition

// ]]>

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 32 queries.