Philosophy Now Forum

Put all the ballots into a salad bowl (hats have gotten too small), pull out one at random, and as it is marked so the election is won. I defend this “sortition democracy” for some cases of issue voting, so long as there is a durable minority on the issue or similar issues, the minority position is not too awful, and the issue does not affect the majority more than it affects the minority. I contend, although without much argument, that the virtues of majoritarian democracy tend to overcome those of sortition as issues become more important. Roughly, as importance rises, individual choice and autonomy, and avoiding their frustration, outweigh giving the minority its occasional day and the higher political dignity that goes with that.

For the arguments see http://lawrencecrocker.blogspot.com/201 ... cracy.html

There was a comic strip from way back when where pretty much that's what happened: every american's name when into the drawing, one got picked, he or she was president for four years. Didn't matter who the person was (a retarded 100 year black dwarf, a six month old, and on and on). Hilarity, of course, ensues, but nuthin' more absurd than what we got, in real life, with our 'best and brightest'.

So: I say give randomocracy a shot cuz we ain't got nuthin' to lose.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Randomocracy

Randomocracy is a theoretical form of government in which members of the government are chosen by random draft, instead of campaigning for office. It is based on Douglas Adams' famous comment that anyone who wants to wield power probably shouldn't be allowed to. It is similar to the system portrayed in "The Lottery in Babylon," by Jorge Luis Borges.

Positive aspects of Randomocracy
It will result in vastly greater representation among lower-class economic castes, as opposed to the current system, where everyone is represented by wealthy white male lawyers and bankers.
Possibly, legislation that is readable by humans will be passed.
Since nobody campaigns for office, the enormous expenditure of effort and money of political campaigns will be obsolete.

Common Criticisms of Randomocracy
With all legislators only serving a single term, accountability for bribery and corruption will be drastically reduced. With no need to campaign for reelection, legislators might accept bribes with both hands, since the primary pressure of accountability via ballots would be eliminated
Members of unpopular beliefs might be installed to office.

Me: not seein' any downside.

#

Bill (EDIT: wrong, Henry...Bob, not Bill),

Get the AEP up and runnin' in a proper way and we can talk...till then...*shrug*

Sorry, Bob...I was writin' fast and do three things at once...let me see if I can edit it.

There ya go...

Too bad the Conservapedia decided to coin a new term when there were already a few in use for democracy with a random aspect, "sortition" having the longest pedigree, although I don't think it goes all the way back to Athens where is was a central feature of the equality they called "isonomia." I guess the authors of that encyclopedia are not so interested in conserving time honored terminology.

The arguments for electing people this way overlap only partially with the arguments for deciding issues this way. My blog post explores some conditions that make issue sortition attractive or unattractive.

They're not quite the same thing tho'?

Your idea Lawrence appears to be that the party drawn wins, the other is that the person drawn gets elected some kind of dictator?