The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Sortition and Public Policy

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
Lucylu
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Lucylu » December 26th, 2014, 8:33 am

Sortition or selection by lot was used in ancient Greece and is currently used to form juries. My question is whether this should be extended to choose our local councillors and state politicians.

Naturally this would eliminate many of the common problems of government today such as elitism, corruption, party politics, career politicians and the influences of corporations. I believe that the general public, if given all the facts, are able to deliberate and make responsible choices. Sortition would truly represent the people and be the ultimate egalitarian democracy (government of the people).
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Okisites
Posts: 1286
Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Okisites » December 26th, 2014, 11:07 am

More something is influenced by people's or individual's choices and preferences, more it will be corrupted and will lead to undesired results. For Example- Democracy(Present Form). Something must be controlled, and go only according to the rules and policies.

I would say Rules, or Laws should govern the people or country, and not the people themselves.

Well, I don't know whether you or anyone will get this or not, but what I am saying is selection of the candidates should be given more importance, and rules should be such that, it will be very difficult for the wrong or undesired candidate to pass the condition, to stand on election or even enter politics. That means selection of candidates, who will stand in elections is more important to care about, then the election of candidates. And this selection must not be influenced by any people from public, but only on the basis of rules.
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller

User avatar
Lucylu
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Lucylu » December 26th, 2014, 5:49 pm

Okisites wrote:More something is influenced by people's or individual's choices and preferences, more it will be corrupted and will lead to undesired results.
Its difficult to find a balance. I think the reason that 'the masses' are currently considered to be ignorant and fickle may be that they have no responsibility for the outcome and have largely become dissafected. If we were all expected to take part, as a public duty, wouldn't the interest in politics rise and the general population would feel more invested and empowered?
Okisites wrote:Rules, or Laws should govern the people or country, and not the people themselves.
A government which was selected through sortation would still be held accountable for their actions, and would still be acting within certain rules and laws (just as a jury is bound by strict rules). The framework would still be there as well as the advisors but the politicians would be a genuine representation of the populace.
Okisites wrote:what I am saying is selection of the candidates should be given more importance, and rules should be such that, it will be very difficult for the wrong or undesired candidate to pass the condition, to stand on election or even enter politics.
What rules would you suggest to select candidates fairly? It seems that, at present, it is supposed to be a democratic system in which only those who are the best for the role are chosen, but in reality it is only those with money, vanity and good marketing that enter politics.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell

Alias
Posts: 2740
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Alias » December 26th, 2014, 8:17 pm

Lucylu wrote:Sortition or selection by lot was used in ancient Greece and is currently used to form juries. My question is whether this should be extended to choose our local councillors and state politicians.
Absolutely! The best possible government is one that has to live with its own decisions, rather than handing decisions down for others to carry out, pay for and suffer the consequences, while the rules themselves are exempt. If all citizens may, at any time, be called upon to administer the state, it becomes a duty of all citizens, rather than the privilege of a few. And if terms of office are kept short (say, two years) no cabals or vested interest faction have time to consolidate their power.... and the officials are still able to pick up their normal life.
Naturally this would eliminate many of the common problems of government today such as elitism, corruption, party politics, career politicians and the influences of corporations.
I'm not sure of that last, but all the others, certainly. When handing over his or her duties, the incumbent would also have to open the ledgers to public scrutiny. Corporate and money interest meddling could be mitigated by never giving one person, or group of acquainted persons, control of large contracts or financial decisions. (Of course, we could reduce it substantially, right now, if we wanted to, by a ban on lobbying .)
I believe that the general public, if given all the facts, are able to deliberate and make responsible choices.

We fully expect them/us to, every time we recruit them into the army, police, medical or building professions And when we ask them to vote.
Sortition would truly represent the people and be the ultimate egalitarian democracy (government of the people).
That, plus a few obvious safeguards, could give us not only true democracy, but good government.

And who wants that?
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8268
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Greta » December 26th, 2014, 10:04 pm

Lucylu wrote:I believe that the general public, if given all the facts, are able to deliberate and make responsible choices.
I love the idea of sortition but there are some issues, one of which is an impassable roadblock to sortition.

1) Many people do not have the capacity to understand the issues. There would need to be some filtering, lest chance bring us a leadership gang of profoundly unintelligent people. That leads us to the question of who does the filtering, and how capacity to understand policy issues can be ascertained. It's a corruptible process.

2) How would people feel about being hauled from their comfortable lives to engage in the intensely demanding work of politics, not to mention the intrusiveness of what would be necessary security measures?

3) Here is the dealbreaker - the Anglosphere's media is dominated by Rupert Murdoch's partisan news outlets. While this situation remains true democracy is not possible in those affected countries, evidenced by our rapid slide towards an ever more powerful powerful oligarchy. Sortition would require approval of Rupert Murdoch and his helpers, and that would require him to surrender some of the immense power he has worked tirelessly to build up over many decades. It won't happen.

I agree with Alias that ideally governments should live with their own decisions. However, this is is the exception rather than the rule in democracies. Governments repeatedly take credit for, or are blamed for, the policies of their predecessors. An honest, disinterested media could clarify these issues (as could flying pigs).

Democracy is an imperfect system that was the best we had for a long time but it is dissolving by natural means. It is being pulled apart by forces that have grown stronger than the "people's representatives". Ironically, this occurs with with the ironic (and corrupt) active assistance of our so-called representatives, whose wages we pay but in truth are acting as double agents favouring the wealthy.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.

User avatar
Okisites
Posts: 1286
Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Okisites » December 27th, 2014, 2:26 am

Lucylu wrote:
Okisites wrote: what I am saying is selection of the candidates should be given more importance, and rules should be such that, it will be very difficult for the wrong or undesired candidate to pass the condition, to stand on election or even enter politics.
What rules would you suggest to select candidates fairly? It seems that, at present, it is supposed to be a democratic system in which only those who are the best for the role are chosen, but in reality it is only those with money, vanity and good marketing that enter politics.
I think candidates should be such that, who are really concerned about specific problem, and are interested in removing those problem as soon as possible. There are many people who dedicated their whole life for the specific cause, be it environment, health issues of poor people, education of poors. These people are given awards when their whole life passed on. Why can't they be a candidates for standing on elections, and given the department which they are more interested in? There are lot of people like this, who can be the best candidates for national politics. Why don't people look towards them as a leader who should be appointed to lead a country?

I think rule should be such that those who come into the national politics, must have invested their time, money, life to the cause of the people and the related things, for the fair number of years, that cannot be done by wrong and undesired candidates. We want these kinds of people, then why can't there be a rule that only allows these kind of peoples in national politics.

In my country, there are candidates like a thieves who use to stand on elections. People are encouraged to elect the candidates, and one of the candidate wins the elections from particular region. And the logic is made that "people likes this person" because they elected him/her. How long will people be made fools by this kind of logic? How long people will take to understand that this logic of elected candidates is flawed? The major part is selection of a candidates, not the elections, which determines the level of democracy in a country. I think this must be understood by the people. Otherwise they will always be slaves of undesirable people who rule us in the name of we elected them. Actually we didn't. They get themselves elected.

I think unless people will show their power on how the candidates should be selected, by laying some strict rules and guidelines, they cannot demonstrate their democracy by any other way, even by electing. So there must be rule at the top which governs, or most possibly at all levels, with no choices involved except the elections by the people. I think this will certainly go in right direction.
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller

User avatar
Lucylu
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Lucylu » December 27th, 2014, 9:53 am

Alias wrote:When handing over his or her duties, the incumbent would also have to open the ledgers to public scrutiny.
Yes, it would be crucial that there is transparency and that the public can feel that they actually have a say in what happens.

Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu, who influenced the Founding Fathers of the USA, felt that the public good was present to some degree in an aristocratic republic but to a much larger degree in a democratic republic. I would argue that no system is going to be perfect but there is a lot more that can be done to minimise some of the major problems today.
Greta wrote:1) Many people do not have the capacity to understand the issues. There would need to be some filtering, lest chance bring us a leadership gang of profoundly unintelligent people.
It would need to be a large enough proportion of the public to make the group representative of the population as a whole but I think people can be trusted more than we like to think. Sortition would not choose politicians but rather a political jury making decisions based on values. Of course, there would need to be certain necessary exemptions such as severe mental illness or disability, years of residency/ citizenship, the armed forces, age restrictions (eg 18-88) and an opt-out facility available to those with specific circumstances such as pregnancy or illness. And if someone is not able to understand the process or act within the rules then they wouldn't be expected to vote.

This also highlights the need for the teaching of ethics, critical thinking and social sciences in schools, rather than spoon feeding answers for good test results.

However, it is important to keep the sample random though, as you rightly say, as statistician's choosing what proportion are x and what proportion are y is open to prejudice.
Greta wrote:2) How would people feel about being hauled from their comfortable lives to engage in the intensely demanding work of politics, not to mention the intrusiveness of what would be necessary security measures?
Yes, I think that the allotted group would need to revolve on quite a regular basis to ensure participation and also to minimise the chances for alliances or corruption. The idea is that taking part in governance is a duty and an obligation rather than a privilege, as Alias said. Many people would be able to participate in local matters more readily than would be able to go to the state parliament/senate. I'm thinking that sortition would only be part of the answer, working alongside elected officials- in some sense a third house of parliament in which 'the People' are able to deliberate and then vote anonymously on the matters at hand. They would of course need to receive basic pay for their time with expenses covered.
Greta wrote:3) Here is the dealbreaker - the Anglosphere's media is dominated by Rupert Murdoch's partisan news outlets. While this situation remains true democracy is not possible in those affected countries, evidenced by our rapid slide towards an ever more powerful powerful oligarchy. Sortition would require approval of Rupert Murdoch and his helpers, and that would require him to surrender some of the immense power he has worked tirelessly to build up over many decades. It won't happen.
I agree that media monopolies need to be broken up. You're quite right that the government and those in power would not allow change and that the public are generally impotent but that is exactly why the system needs to change. I'm sure that once it must have seemed that it was impossible for women to have equal rights or for slavery to end so there must be a way for democracy to be improved also (I HOPE!). There are logistical issues with a change in the system but, as I said, sortition and elections aren't necessarily mutually exclusive and it could be phased in gradually. At the moment democracy seems to have one hand tied behind its back.

To take Iceland as a case study: they used their recent financial crash as an opportunity to start again. The people organised a revolution via social media and through sortation and deliberation they created a new constitution and key values for their country's future. Obviously Iceland has a very small population so some might argue that this model could not work on a much larger scale, but perhaps Iceland gives us some insight in to the potential good that can come from working on a more localised scale.
Okisites wrote:There are many people who dedicated their whole life for the specific cause, be it environment, health issues of poor people, education of poors. These people are given awards when their whole life passed on. Why can't they be a candidates for standing on elections, and given the department which they are more interested in?
Absolutely. A person should have extensive work experience and/ or hopefully a doctorate in their given field. In Britain these are typically found in the House of Lords, with the House of Commons being filled with the career politicians who are essentially project managers. I am not sure that we can do without the project managers completely as they do serve a middle-management function but I would like to see the people also represented through sortition. The decision making power would be removed from the politicians and given to the allotted political jury.

So, the first house of parliament would be the experts and advisors (as you suggest). They would make proposals for what is the best way forward. The second house would be filled with a random selection of the people who decide and vote on what they want and the third house of parliament may need to be the project managers who put the decisions in to action. I'm not sure if these would still need to be elected but presumably the nature of these politicians would change once their fame, status and influence are diminished.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8268
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Greta » December 27th, 2014, 10:40 am

Lucylu wrote:This also highlights the need for the teaching of ethics, critical thinking and social sciences in schools, rather than spoon feeding answers for good test results.
I agree. I've heard postulated that the seeming self-defeating reluctance of some western nations to educate their people stems from the wish of those in power (corporations that control governments) to have convenient and controllable "drones" at their disposal.
Lucylu wrote:Yes, I think that the allotted group would need to revolve on quite a regular basis to ensure participation and also to minimise the chances for alliances or corruption. The idea is that taking part in governance is a duty and an obligation rather than a privilege, as Alias said. Many people would be able to participate in local matters more readily than would be able to go to the state parliament/senate. I'm thinking that sortition would only be part of the answer, working alongside elected officials- in some sense a third house of parliament in which 'the People' are able to deliberate and then vote anonymously on the matters at hand. They would of course need to receive basic pay for their time with expenses covered.
Corruption and bias are challenges. How can we rely on regular people to resist the entreaties of their friends, family and associates to attend local problems, to push their own local agendas "up the list"? They not even see it as corrupt, given that we can easily asses our known issues to be more important than the ones we know less about. This could lead to the "political jury" consisting of self interested parties trying to push the agenda in their own selfish directions, ie. more of the same.

Also, "basic pay" would not be enough to eliminate the threat of corruption. Wealthy corporations would relish having access to inexperienced laypersons with power, and if they are rotated we would be consistently losing knowledge and experience.

On the plus side, the invaluable knowledge and experience of governance would enhance the participants' working lives.
Lucylu wrote:I agree that media monopolies need to be broken up. You're quite right that the government and those in power would not allow change and that the public are generally impotent but that is exactly why the system needs to change. I'm sure that once it must have seemed that it was impossible for women to have equal rights or for slavery to end so there must be a way for democracy to be improved also (I HOPE!). There are logistical issues with a change in the system but, as I said, sortition and elections aren't necessarily mutually exclusive and it could be phased in gradually. At the moment democracy seems to have one hand tied behind its back.

To take Iceland as a case study: they used their recent financial crash as an opportunity to start again. The people organised a revolution via social media and through sortation and deliberation they created a new constitution and key values for their country's future. Obviously Iceland has a very small population so some might argue that this model could not work on a much larger scale, but perhaps Iceland gives us some insight in to the potential good that can come from working on a more localised scale.
Yes, scale is significant. We are dealing with corporations with greater wealth than Iceland and plenty of other nations. Still, chaos theory tells us that small events can have major knock-on effects so you never know.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.

Alias
Posts: 2740
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Alias » December 27th, 2014, 2:06 pm

The whole concept of democracy rests on the same premises that are used as objections to the real practice of democracy. 1. That adult citizens are capable of decisions regarding their own lives and social structures., 2. That a constitution and laws can be upheld by a reasonable polity, reasonably administered. and 3. That no special talent o training are required to conduct the legislative processes (After all, we do let shopkeepers run for office and farmers vote for them.) We already assume that we can manage both to select and to instruct a jury that has the power of life and death over one individual. We already trust our fellow citizens with our health, our children, our safety, every minute of the day.

In a system of overlapping terms of two years in office, what are the actual mathematical odds of a majority of GW Bushes and Sara Palins in one governing body at the same time? Higher or lower that the odds of the same thing happening in a self-selecting two party system?

Would miners, bakers and janitors want to leave their normal life for two years in government? Some more than others - but it would come to be seen as a sabbatical, from which one returns to one's [ guaranteed ] regular job with a new perspective, different experience. And, of course, without the need to curry patronage or campaign or worry about one's image, politics itself would be far less stressful and distasteful than it is now.

Would people in an unaccustomed position of relative power want to do favours for their friends? Probably. But their friends would be miners, bakers and janitors, not the entire money-lending establishment or oil industry. And they would not depend on these friends for their own continued privilege or wealth.

And, of course, any popular system of government can function adequately only as long as its three pillars are stable: a non-political judiciary, a free and independent press and a competent, reasonably honest civil service.

Suppose we run the pilot program on towns no larger than 10,000 inhabitants and if it works, keep enlarging it till we get to the UN.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Wilson
Posts: 1499
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Wilson » December 28th, 2014, 3:47 am

I think randomly selecting politicians would probably be an improvement, but of course the problem is that not everybody is management material - some are incompetent and some are crooks.

Instead, how about requiring people running for office to have gone through a course in public service - management, economics, ethics, etc.? One of the problems with politicians is that they are people who talk a good game, impress as campaigners, but are incompetent at being in charge of their level of government and of course are much more motivated by the desire to be re-elected than by a desire to do a great job for their constituents.

User avatar
Okisites
Posts: 1286
Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Okisites » December 28th, 2014, 4:36 am

Lucylu wrote:
Okisites wrote:There are many people who dedicated their whole life for the specific cause, be it environment, health issues of poor people, education of poors. These people are given awards when their whole life passed on. Why can't they be a candidates for standing on elections, and given the department which they are more interested in?
Absolutely. A person should have extensive work experience and/ or hopefully a doctorate in their given field. In Britain these are typically found in the House of Lords, with the House of Commons being filled with the career politicians who are essentially project managers. I am not sure that we can do without the project managers completely as they do serve a middle-management function but I would like to see the people also represented through sortition. The decision making power would be removed from the politicians and given to the allotted political jury.

So, the first house of parliament would be the experts and advisors (as you suggest). They would make proposals for what is the best way forward. The second house would be filled with a random selection of the people who decide and vote on what they want and the third house of parliament may need to be the project managers who put the decisions in to action. I'm not sure if these would still need to be elected but presumably the nature of these politicians would change once their fame, status and influence are diminished.
Why exactly you said doctoraite in their given field? What qualities they supposed to have to serve the country better?

I see that you didn't paid attention to the social workers I have suggested who have dedicated their life for any particular cause? Do you think that these people are inelligible for top government/management works?

I agree to your rest of suggestions, but I didn't understood why you stated doctoraite degree, and didn't said anything about the common people who are interested in bringing about changes in some particular area and also dedicated their life and money in that. I would like to have a clarification.
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller

Alias
Posts: 2740
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Alias » December 28th, 2014, 10:00 am

I really don't see qualifications as an obstacle to random selection. There are no such qualifications presently applied to eligibility for public office. Career politicians are adept at fund-raising and campaigning and deal-making. There is nothing to stop a president from putting a horse-show organizer in charge of national emergency or the prime minister from appointing a rabidly anti-union industrialist as Minister of Labour. Most of them have no administrative skill and don't need any: their secretaries, assistants, deputies agencies and departments do the actual work.

Legislatures make policy decisions - they don't have to run the country, just steer it.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

User avatar
Lucylu
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Lucylu » December 28th, 2014, 10:38 am

Greta wrote:I've heard postulated that the seeming self-defeating reluctance of some western nations to educate their people stems from the wish of those in power (corporations that control governments) to have convenient and controllable "drones" at their disposal.
I don't really go in for conspiracy theories myself. I think people are just a bit lazy and fear change and the unknown. Things are getting better but it takes generations for it to come together. There has been such rapid social change over the past century already, its no wonder revolutionising the government of the western world seems more than a little terrifying. But maybe its next on the 'To Do' List!
Wilson wrote:Instead, how about requiring people running for office to have gone through a course in public service - management, economics, ethics, etc.?
Thanks for your thoughts Wilson. I could be wrong but many politicians study politics, international relations or the traditional 'PPE', Philosophy, Politics and Economics at university, I think. I don't think they are all bad but it is just the system which is out of balance and skewed to favour the rich and vain. Plus people will tend to be naughty if everyone else is and when there are no consequences. The public need to have a much larger role and to be the decision makers rather than just being thrown the occasional election or referendum to keep us appeased!
Wilson wrote:I think randomly selecting politicians would probably be an improvement, but of course the problem is that not everybody is management material - some are incompetent and some are crooks.
Im thinking more along the lines of a political jury of randomly selected people who would be able to decide which proposals they wanted to say yes or no to. They wouldn't necessarily have to be make the proposals or put them in to practice themselves. We would still need the managers as you rightly pointed out, but as Okisites says they should be those who are genuinely dedicated to working in their given area of expertise, not just moved around from education to foreign affairs to the environment at the drop of a hat.
Greta wrote:Corruption and bias are challenges. How can we rely on regular people to resist the entreaties of their friends, family and associates to attend local problems, to push their own local agendas "up the list"?
Corruption and biases are challenges, your right, but don't you think the chances of a random selection of people being corrupt are less than within a group of career politicians with allegiances and investments, largely from wealthy backgrounds?
Alias wrote:The whole concept of democracy rests on the same premises that are used as objections to the real practice of democracy. 1. That adult citizens are capable of decisions regarding their own lives and social structures., 2. That a constitution and laws can be upheld by a reasonable polity, reasonably administered. and 3. That no special talent o training are required to conduct the legislative processes
I suppose it is partly about whether we can trust people. Like you, I think we can (apart from a small minority). People with criminal records would be excluded from participation anyway. I think people respond to expectation, so if we raise expectations, people will respond accordingly.

This link: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1002/10011701 is a large study of the effectiveness of the jury system in England and Wales and it is comforting to know that many of the myths people believe are unfounded.

A recent World Happiness Report by the UN and co-edited by the Director of the Earth Institute, Professor Jeffery Sachs, at Columbia University found that,

".. it is not just wealth that makes people happy: Political freedom, strong social networks and an absence of corruption are together more important than income in explaining well-being differences between the top and bottom countries. At the individual level, good mental and physical health, someone to count on, job security and stable families are crucial."

I think it is the disparity between the richest and poorest of the country that creates a great deal of unhappiness and this gap appears to be widening in the western world.
Alias wrote:Suppose we run the pilot program on towns no larger than 10,000 inhabitants and if it works, keep enlarging it till we get to the UN.
I couldn't agree more. The thought of huge change can seem like it might end up all going wrong but if it was gradual and tested at each stage then there would be no good reason not to roll it out nationally and beyond.
Alias wrote:any popular system of government can function adequately only as long as its three pillars are stable: a non-political judiciary, a free and independent press and a competent, reasonably honest civil service.
Not in our life time perhaps, but hopefully, its not too far away!
Alias wrote:Legislatures make policy decisions - they don't have to run the country, just steer it.
I agree. Any reasonable person can be entrusted to important decisions, based on their values.
Okisites wrote:Why exactly you said doctorate in their given field? What qualities they supposed to have to serve the country better? I see that you didn't paid attention to the social workers I have suggested who have dedicated their life for any particular cause? Do you think that these people are inelligible for top government/management works?
Maybe I wasn't clear. I was agreeing with you when I said those with 'extensive work experience and/ or a doctorate' in their given field are both invaluable.

Those who are doing in depth studies to create reliable data are very important as well as those who have spent their lives actually working 'in the trenches' in education, social work, healthcare, the police, for the environment and so on. The experienced worker may be swayed by institutionalisation and confirmation bias, however, so their experience must be backed up by genuine, impartial, scientific studies.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell

Alias
Posts: 2740
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by Alias » December 28th, 2014, 4:21 pm

It's not easy to imagine all the long-term ramifications of a major reform. We tend to think of the system as we have hitherto experienced it, with just the one new factor plugged in. But it's far more than that!

The reason for power concentrating in fewer and hands while wealth accumulates in fewer in fewer pockets is that the career politicians and money-changers have been in bed together for so long, making all the policies, which create the upcoming issues, which drive the next election, which is financed and conducted by the same couplings, which give birth to the policies that concentrate more power and accumulate more wealth.... What would happen to the cycle if you burned that nuptial couch?

Imagine the change in society, caused by nothing more than the absence of political campaigning. No hoopla and advertising; no floodtide of money. The subject matter of news media: information, not promotion or defamation. And the attitude of the public toward their representatives - not stage celebrities.

I have been imagining the ways our whole social structure would change. For a start, 51% of the representatives would be female; various proportions, depending on the country, would be racial and religious minorities. There would be 15 working class officials for every professional and six white-collar employees to one executive. The whole emphasis and preoccupation of governance would shift. A great many of our present preconceptions simply become invalid.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

User avatar
MidiChlorian
Posts: 295
Joined: August 20th, 2013, 6:59 pm

Re: Sortition and Public Policy

Post by MidiChlorian » December 28th, 2014, 7:09 pm

One of the biggest issues which a Democratic Government has to contend with is the election process, where this present government has actually become to large to be managed by "sortation" because for the most part the public or people who are supposed to be represented manly which to create a life and have a home which will benefit their families for the present and the future. This requires that they have the means by which to work for their intended life style, which would also require that others have similar ambitions but, it is evident that their first concerns would be for themselves and family. Politics has become a game, which is played by those who generally have good intentions but because the current form of government has become a party affair and this party system when segregated in small factions becomes a problem in that there is little choice between two or three party policies, which by themselves are not diverse enough to bring change on the table for the voters to choose between what has become various forms of evil. Therefore, to start with there should be a "NO" vote available on any ballot which would allow the public to select neither of the proposed candidates runni8ng for specific positions in government. This would at least present the need to offer the voting public a choice of no confidence in those who have either been chosen by controlling party leaders for the benefit of the party verses the people.

For the most part in federal government, those who are serving have no idea of how the collection of current laws have hindered any kind of progress for the improvement of making changes, which mostly affect the public. The main factors with the people who vote for public officials is the relief of taxation which makes it possible for the common people to create a life which would enable them to live the American Dream. Nevertheless, those who represent us in Congress have little understanding of over 73,000 pages of tax code which has been building over many decades which favor those who are in public office and who wish to stay there as long as possible, therefore making their job security more important than actually supporting a government by the people and for the people. The current financial structure of this government can never hope to pay off the national debt and for the most part, those in government really don't want to because they don't know how. Then there is the factor that the government cannot make a profit, because they give everything away to those corporations who have been deemed as people who have rights as bestowed upon them by the legal branches of government. Therefore if the corporations in total have more funds and clout than the total population of the average people who make up the majority of the voting public, who are employed by these minority corporations who pay their salaries, will generally vote to keep their jobs, so that they can pay the taxes which the corporations have avoided to pay, and will attempt to keep this Status Quo in tact. So, the only thing that people are voting for is to keep the poor, poor and the rich, rich, where the middle are called tax payers.
The Reality of knowing what Wisdom is, is in the Experiencing of the Philosophy of using Knowledge.

Post Reply