Random selection is necessary to create stable meritocratic institutions

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.

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.

> There is a non-trivial amount of nuance and compromise that goes in lawmaking.

We just passed that "big beautiful bill" and it was quite clear nobody knew or cared what was in it, beyond it being "trump's bill he wants". I'm guessing staffers and lobbyists had a far more detailed understanding of their portions than any elected official did.

It's a reasonable guess that 100 randos would actually write a better bill.

But the status quo is considered anomalous by most of the world, so I would not use it as a benchmark.

I'm all in for some continuous improvement experiments for democracy:

- modest proposal: yes, have X random people in government, but have a Y-month paid training period before they serve for Z years; ALSO ensure their families want for nothing (read, a decent non-luxurious lifestyle), but prohibit receiving money from lobbyists, PACs, gifts, etc... AND, ensure they get reintegrated into society in a nonpolitical field (with some exceptions) by also offering Y-month long paid training in different fields.

The corruption costs reduction would significantly outweigh any increase in payroll and training.

"Simple" remedies for American democracy:

  * Campaign Finance Reform
  * End Citizens United
  * Ranked choice voting (or a variant of same).

Technically totally feasible, just impossible due to the current owners.