←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 #
k__ ◴[14 Jul 25 16:55 UTC] No.44562381[source]▶
Haha, mine too.

It would probably make sense to start with a new new "house" or something.

Might even make sense to have some quotas (at least 50% women etc.), so the whole things doesn't have to get to Chinese government size to reflect the populus.

That or pepple would have to be replaced with high frequency

replies(1): >>44562611 #
bilbo0s ◴[14 Jul 25 17:10 UTC] No.44562611[source]▶
If it's truly random, it should already be 50-52% female.

If it comes out 10% female every sortition cohort, you know some funny business is going on.

replies(2): >>44562907 #>>44564616 #
1. breuleux ◴[14 Jul 25 20:03 UTC] No.44564616{3}[source]▶
If the sample size is low, it could come out at 10% purely at random, but that is still likely to undermine confidence in the system (in the immediate). Pragmatically, I think it makes sense to have quotas for a few protected classes, to maximize perception of fairness.