Your point at the end about how "The purpose of this post is not to provide a blueprint for the use of sortition but rather to demonstrate that there are ways of improving democracy and to encourage you to think about the possibilities" is an approach I've covered before. The point isn't that "I have the ultimate best solution", but that "We need to start the wheels turning toward studying some new possibilities, because these aren't working".
Some other ideas that might sound crazy, but I don't care - at least some of us are THINKING outside the box:
Great post and thoughts that are shared in my house. Two thoughts: 1) at a professional development seminar I attended, it was suggested that management teams work best if the group is made up of a range of personality types, so that they complement each other. Government is management, so the same should apply, rather than the royal flush of psychopaths we get served with; and 2) in Australia, local government mayors have an annual term, chosen from the council. Same could apply to the President, who is simply a representative of the council for the sake of public appearances.
1) I'm not a big fan of the "diversity is our strength" approach but if forced to go this way I'd prefer a range of backgrounds and experiences over personality types.
2) I'll have to give this one more consideration. That said, some initial thoughts: 1) if the president becomes simply a figurehead, you've essentially eliminated the executive branch of the government; 2) if the president retains his authority then rotating the role on an annual basis would lead to too much variation in domestic and foreign policy.
Sounds interesting. But remember: It matters less who votes or how many. What counts is who counts the votes, to paraphrase Uncle Joe (Stalin, not Biden). Who will make the "random" selections (compare Michigan's recent redistricting)? How will anyone be able to discern or prove improprieties if one side or the other somehow winds up with an unfettered majority? Interesting idea, but perhaps disingenuously trusting.
Any state, province, or nation wide system for this type of election would need to be computer based. Clearly there are "trust issues" and opportunities for abuse but certainly no more than there are today. Also, statistical analysis techniques, not unlike those currently in use in casinos in Vegas and other gambling locations, would make it rather easy to identify cheating.
The essential problem is that people--including upstanding, responsible people like you and me--are corruptible in big and small ways. Appropriate controls, checks, and balances dissuade those of us who are at least basically morally bound from egregious lapses. This has been done remarkably well in the American constitutional experiment, but with the general deterioration of our moral base and the availability of cheap hacks that allow manipulation of computer data in secret and with no meaningful accountability, secret systems like computers have apparently already been used to corrupt our selection processes. And if those who benefit from what for the sake of argument "might be" cheating prevent investigation like those "statistical analysis techniques" you advocate, Mr. O'Reilly, those who fail to benefit are left without recourse. Is it any wonder many people have already lost trust in the electoral system.
But going further, what is needed in either system (for simplicity, the two discussed--elections or random selection) require that the majority of citizens subscribe to a moral system, and also that the culture as a whole subscribes or attempts to act in accordance with that moral system. In simple terms, the concept can be stated in a currently unpopular way: We need to turn or return to God and His ways--to mass individual commitment to follow these ways as best we can. One expression of that a century ago (also a best-selling book): WWJD.
I agree with Mr. O'Reilly completely, that changes need to be made, but doubt the ruling elitist will allow that. I have been saying the exact comments for years that you just made. Counters count and get the results they want is a recent phenomenon, but there is a political party, that will remain unnamed, that has perfected it and week-spined Congress critters in the "other party" that maintains a uni party atmosphere make any change doubtful.
Interesting stuff, Philip.
Your point at the end about how "The purpose of this post is not to provide a blueprint for the use of sortition but rather to demonstrate that there are ways of improving democracy and to encourage you to think about the possibilities" is an approach I've covered before. The point isn't that "I have the ultimate best solution", but that "We need to start the wheels turning toward studying some new possibilities, because these aren't working".
Some other ideas that might sound crazy, but I don't care - at least some of us are THINKING outside the box:
https://zephareth.substack.com/p/why-do-we-allow-ourselves-to-be-slaves
https://zephareth.substack.com/p/forcing-the-hand-of-political-cooperation
Good read as always, sir. ZL
Thanks Zephareth. I will check them out.
Great post and thoughts that are shared in my house. Two thoughts: 1) at a professional development seminar I attended, it was suggested that management teams work best if the group is made up of a range of personality types, so that they complement each other. Government is management, so the same should apply, rather than the royal flush of psychopaths we get served with; and 2) in Australia, local government mayors have an annual term, chosen from the council. Same could apply to the President, who is simply a representative of the council for the sake of public appearances.
Thanks for reading!
1) I'm not a big fan of the "diversity is our strength" approach but if forced to go this way I'd prefer a range of backgrounds and experiences over personality types.
2) I'll have to give this one more consideration. That said, some initial thoughts: 1) if the president becomes simply a figurehead, you've essentially eliminated the executive branch of the government; 2) if the president retains his authority then rotating the role on an annual basis would lead to too much variation in domestic and foreign policy.
Sounds interesting. But remember: It matters less who votes or how many. What counts is who counts the votes, to paraphrase Uncle Joe (Stalin, not Biden). Who will make the "random" selections (compare Michigan's recent redistricting)? How will anyone be able to discern or prove improprieties if one side or the other somehow winds up with an unfettered majority? Interesting idea, but perhaps disingenuously trusting.
Any state, province, or nation wide system for this type of election would need to be computer based. Clearly there are "trust issues" and opportunities for abuse but certainly no more than there are today. Also, statistical analysis techniques, not unlike those currently in use in casinos in Vegas and other gambling locations, would make it rather easy to identify cheating.
The essential problem is that people--including upstanding, responsible people like you and me--are corruptible in big and small ways. Appropriate controls, checks, and balances dissuade those of us who are at least basically morally bound from egregious lapses. This has been done remarkably well in the American constitutional experiment, but with the general deterioration of our moral base and the availability of cheap hacks that allow manipulation of computer data in secret and with no meaningful accountability, secret systems like computers have apparently already been used to corrupt our selection processes. And if those who benefit from what for the sake of argument "might be" cheating prevent investigation like those "statistical analysis techniques" you advocate, Mr. O'Reilly, those who fail to benefit are left without recourse. Is it any wonder many people have already lost trust in the electoral system.
But going further, what is needed in either system (for simplicity, the two discussed--elections or random selection) require that the majority of citizens subscribe to a moral system, and also that the culture as a whole subscribes or attempts to act in accordance with that moral system. In simple terms, the concept can be stated in a currently unpopular way: We need to turn or return to God and His ways--to mass individual commitment to follow these ways as best we can. One expression of that a century ago (also a best-selling book): WWJD.
I agree with Mr. O'Reilly completely, that changes need to be made, but doubt the ruling elitist will allow that. I have been saying the exact comments for years that you just made. Counters count and get the results they want is a recent phenomenon, but there is a political party, that will remain unnamed, that has perfected it and week-spined Congress critters in the "other party" that maintains a uni party atmosphere make any change doubtful.
“Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he could do only a little.”
—Edmund Burke
If what I write convinces one person, I've moved us one step closer to fixing our problems.