I'd prefer no election spending to no election. ie the public gives candidates funding and this is all that may be spent. We cannot diversify leadership when great candidates can't afford to run campaigns. Ideally there is a stipend for living costs too. (I can't afford to quit my day job to run. Nor can most of us risk a good job by requesting leave of absence for public service.)
It’s such an odd concept that is at first glance ridiculous, but upon reflection makes sense. Likely impossible to implement, and would come with a host of unforeseen consequences. Malcolm Gladwell did a very good review of the concept in a Revisionist History episode:
The thing I like about elections is there's some kind of accountability, imperfect though it might be. In our sortition thought experiement what would stop a few Nextdoor randos doing awful stuff without consequences? A sort of random example is the clearing of the homeless encampments from Lamport Park in Toronto; as best I can tell this was wildly popular with many people in the city, but was viewed with a range of distaste to horror by politicians, media, and activists. A sortitional government would likely be quite brutal, both literally and figuratively.
Sortition sounds like a much better governance method than what we now have but how could we ever transition to that when the present system is embedded and the people with the power to change the system have no incentive to change. How do we get out of this dysfunctional first past the post system that is anti democratic. Great article but now could you address how we can institute change.
Very interesting concept. One thing I am wondering regarding the sortition idea, is will the civil service become the governors de-facto, because they will know the system and the rules best.
This is what I’ve wanted to do with the senate for a long time (but I didn’t know it had a name). The question for me is term limits - how to balance the benefits of learning against the dangers of becoming an entrenched interest!
It is a mystery to me why replacing the senate with a citizen’s assembly is not the #1 project of the left. If we claim to be about people/change and opposed to maintaining the structures of oppression, why wouldn’t we want to put regular people in power?
There’s also the effect of these people returning to their communities and sharing what they’ve learned. Sharing the benefit of engaging in good faith negotiation with opposing viewpoints, face to face and seeing a direct result.
Carrying that sense of autonomy back can be an antidote to the feeling of disenfranchisement that pervades a lot of communities.
If there’s a sense that an average person can make a difference, I think it will do a lot to disempower the predators that feed off despair.
In Plato’s Republic, he writes that the Guardians of the state must be compelled to lead. Why compelled? Because no clear headed guardian would want the job of leading.
And because they are too wise to want the job of leading, they are PRECISELY the ones who SHOULD lead.
In LOTR, Galadriel is tested with the ring of power. She refuses it. Because she knows that that power will corrupt any good she intends, even a good as powerful as hers.
If you want the job of leading a state, you may be the person least equipped to handle it, because of the corrupting effect of power.
Are you aware of any experiments where the effects of sortition have been studied? (assuming they're materially different from citizens' assemblies). Not doubting their potential, just really curious about comparing this across other systems, and even just different kinds of citizens' assemblies.
Yep. Draft people. By lottery. And lots of them; like half the square root of the number of eligible voters. Then set them to deliberating, like jury duty, but for four years.
I'd prefer no election spending to no election. ie the public gives candidates funding and this is all that may be spent. We cannot diversify leadership when great candidates can't afford to run campaigns. Ideally there is a stipend for living costs too. (I can't afford to quit my day job to run. Nor can most of us risk a good job by requesting leave of absence for public service.)
It’s such an odd concept that is at first glance ridiculous, but upon reflection makes sense. Likely impossible to implement, and would come with a host of unforeseen consequences. Malcolm Gladwell did a very good review of the concept in a Revisionist History episode:
https://omny.fm/shows/revisionist-history/the-powerball-revolution
I agree with Sid, we’ve really got to focus instead on getting past First Past the Post.
The thing I like about elections is there's some kind of accountability, imperfect though it might be. In our sortition thought experiement what would stop a few Nextdoor randos doing awful stuff without consequences? A sort of random example is the clearing of the homeless encampments from Lamport Park in Toronto; as best I can tell this was wildly popular with many people in the city, but was viewed with a range of distaste to horror by politicians, media, and activists. A sortitional government would likely be quite brutal, both literally and figuratively.
Sortition sounds like a much better governance method than what we now have but how could we ever transition to that when the present system is embedded and the people with the power to change the system have no incentive to change. How do we get out of this dysfunctional first past the post system that is anti democratic. Great article but now could you address how we can institute change.
Very interesting concept. One thing I am wondering regarding the sortition idea, is will the civil service become the governors de-facto, because they will know the system and the rules best.
This is what I’ve wanted to do with the senate for a long time (but I didn’t know it had a name). The question for me is term limits - how to balance the benefits of learning against the dangers of becoming an entrenched interest!
It is a mystery to me why replacing the senate with a citizen’s assembly is not the #1 project of the left. If we claim to be about people/change and opposed to maintaining the structures of oppression, why wouldn’t we want to put regular people in power?
There’s also the effect of these people returning to their communities and sharing what they’ve learned. Sharing the benefit of engaging in good faith negotiation with opposing viewpoints, face to face and seeing a direct result.
Carrying that sense of autonomy back can be an antidote to the feeling of disenfranchisement that pervades a lot of communities.
If there’s a sense that an average person can make a difference, I think it will do a lot to disempower the predators that feed off despair.
I like this.
In Plato’s Republic, he writes that the Guardians of the state must be compelled to lead. Why compelled? Because no clear headed guardian would want the job of leading.
And because they are too wise to want the job of leading, they are PRECISELY the ones who SHOULD lead.
In LOTR, Galadriel is tested with the ring of power. She refuses it. Because she knows that that power will corrupt any good she intends, even a good as powerful as hers.
If you want the job of leading a state, you may be the person least equipped to handle it, because of the corrupting effect of power.
Mr. Moscrop,
I read your book (Too Dumb …) a couple years ago, but was disappointed that sortition wasn’t explored more fully as a solution.
You’ve written a couple of pieces now on electoral reform in the Globe and Mail without mentioning sortition.
Why are you holding back on putting sortition out there, as an alternative to electoral systems, in the Globe where it will get a much wider audience?
Are you aware of any experiments where the effects of sortition have been studied? (assuming they're materially different from citizens' assemblies). Not doubting their potential, just really curious about comparing this across other systems, and even just different kinds of citizens' assemblies.
Yep. Draft people. By lottery. And lots of them; like half the square root of the number of eligible voters. Then set them to deliberating, like jury duty, but for four years.