←back to thread

Random selection is necessary to create stable meritocratic institutions

(assemblingamerica.substack.com)
360 points namlem | 1 comments | 14 Jul 25 15:28 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
retrac ◴[14 Jul 25 16:28 UTC] No.44562032[source]▶
The technical term is sortition. And it is my pet unorthodox political position. The legislature should be replaced with an assembly of citizens picked by lottery.
replies(22): >>44562101 #>>44562171 #>>44562282 #>>44562381 #>>44562409 #>>44562535 #>>44562693 #>>44562879 #>>44562889 #>>44562956 #>>44562965 #>>44563058 #>>44563183 #>>44563590 #>>44564320 #>>44564823 #>>44565767 #>>44566093 #>>44572194 #>>44572213 #>>44572628 #>>44573260 #
gameman144 ◴[14 Jul 25 16:33 UTC] No.44562101[source]▶
This may show that I'm biased, but the idea of a randomized group of citizens making the law of the land scares the heck out of me. There is a non-trivial amount of nuance and compromise that goes in lawmaking.

Now, the idea of electing a few thousand representatives and having sortition determine who is actually selected is something I could feasibly get behind.

replies(14): >>44562205 #>>44562207 #>>44562350 #>>44562367 #>>44562501 #>>44562713 #>>44562716 #>>44562771 #>>44563329 #>>44563537 #>>44564233 #>>44564610 #>>44569821 #>>44571062 #
1. marcosdumay ◴[14 Jul 25 20:03 UTC] No.44564610[source]▶
Yep, I can get behind sortition between qualified candidates.

I disagree with your example, but things like deciding supreme court justices over the population of judges or department heads over the population of professors seem quite ok.

For lawmaking in particular, it looks like a bad idea. There will be lots of people trying to con the uninformed representatives into behaving badly.