The author could totally rehash the ancient Athenian arguments, as their flavour of democracy was Sortition - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition . They (e.g. Aristotle, Plato) argued against elections - because rich and wealthy would capture them and take over the government, perverting it to further enrich themselves. The only way to have a democratic body was to select Senate (slight simplification, read the wiki for details) at random from all adult citizens.
This has been known to humanity for over 2500 years.
I like the idea of replacing primaries with sortition. Select 10 candidates random from among the list of people who voted in the last election. If someone doesn’t want to be on the list of candidates, they can decline and another will be added. Then you hold an election with a runoff between the randomly selected candidates.
I like this system because it still gives the people some choice. With 10 random candidates, it will be rare for an election to not have a diversity of viewpoints represented. So people will still be able to vote to support the policies they support. And you’ll still have a voting layer to hopefully weed out the worst of the worst.
Yes, this would still let money have some impact on races. But it would eliminate the main way the wealthy actually influence elections - the primary phase. The wealthy have their most influence in politics before the primary even begins. Right now we’re already in the middle of the 2028 shadow primary for the presidency. Potential candidates are quietly going around to potential wealthy backers, lining up support and financing in exchange for future favors. This is why “just vote in the primary!” never seems to work - the wealthy put their thumbs on the scale before the official primary even began.
It’s very hard for people to get their name out there. If an average unknown person wants to run for US House or US Senate, they’re going to need a ton of money just to get enough people to know their name. Candidates who aren’t independently wealthy have to sell out before the primary process even begins. Replacing primaries with sortition would eliminate the greatest tool the wealthy have to influence elections, while still preserving the fundamental right of people to choose their leaders.
I really like the idea you have brought up. We need to get away from popular elections of candidates who represent parties towards a system of randomizing elected officials that places the focus on actual policies.
Politicians desperately need accountability. As it stands they can lie through their teeth and then do pretty much whatever they want once elected with zero consequences until the next election cycle.
I’ve actually been in support for random selection for a long time. Treat the offices of the country like jury duty. Random selection every few years, and allow veto power via recall to remove them and do a new election if they do a poor job.
Something to keep in mind going forward to be sure. With the world how it is, a violent revolution is an inevitability. And what kind of governance we want afterwards needs to be thought up now.
The author could totally rehash the ancient Athenian arguments, as their flavour of democracy was Sortition - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition . They (e.g. Aristotle, Plato) argued against elections - because rich and wealthy would capture them and take over the government, perverting it to further enrich themselves. The only way to have a democratic body was to select Senate (slight simplification, read the wiki for details) at random from all adult citizens.
This has been known to humanity for over 2500 years.
This concludes my democracy talk.
I like the idea of replacing primaries with sortition. Select 10 candidates random from among the list of people who voted in the last election. If someone doesn’t want to be on the list of candidates, they can decline and another will be added. Then you hold an election with a runoff between the randomly selected candidates.
I like this system because it still gives the people some choice. With 10 random candidates, it will be rare for an election to not have a diversity of viewpoints represented. So people will still be able to vote to support the policies they support. And you’ll still have a voting layer to hopefully weed out the worst of the worst.
Yes, this would still let money have some impact on races. But it would eliminate the main way the wealthy actually influence elections - the primary phase. The wealthy have their most influence in politics before the primary even begins. Right now we’re already in the middle of the 2028 shadow primary for the presidency. Potential candidates are quietly going around to potential wealthy backers, lining up support and financing in exchange for future favors. This is why “just vote in the primary!” never seems to work - the wealthy put their thumbs on the scale before the official primary even began.
It’s very hard for people to get their name out there. If an average unknown person wants to run for US House or US Senate, they’re going to need a ton of money just to get enough people to know their name. Candidates who aren’t independently wealthy have to sell out before the primary process even begins. Replacing primaries with sortition would eliminate the greatest tool the wealthy have to influence elections, while still preserving the fundamental right of people to choose their leaders.
I really like the idea you have brought up. We need to get away from popular elections of candidates who represent parties towards a system of randomizing elected officials that places the focus on actual policies.
Politicians desperately need accountability. As it stands they can lie through their teeth and then do pretty much whatever they want once elected with zero consequences until the next election cycle.
We can just pay off whomever wins or threaten/disappear people until we find someone pro-billionaire.
Fatalism is fatal. You’re postulating a mechanism that exists regardless of type of government, so it’s irrelevant to the discussion here.
Getting rid of the capitalists is a requirement before any change can take place.
I’ve actually been in support for random selection for a long time. Treat the offices of the country like jury duty. Random selection every few years, and allow veto power via recall to remove them and do a new election if they do a poor job.
It can’t possibly be worse than what we have now.
Something to keep in mind going forward to be sure. With the world how it is, a violent revolution is an inevitability. And what kind of governance we want afterwards needs to be thought up now.