
We Should Let a Lottery Decide Our Government - pseudolus
https://thewalrus.ca/why-we-should-let-a-lottery-decide-our-government/
======
jvanderbot
Maybe. I am bothered that there's an unofficial pre-election in the US that is
called campaign financing. It skews candidates towards the wealthy, corporate
backed, or populist. If elections were publicly financed somehow, then perhaps
we'd see a more representative selection. At least they wouldn't be beholden
to donors as often.

~~~
BurningFrog
The counterintuitive solution is to get rid of campaign finance restrictions.

If money is easier to get, candidates will need to "pay" less for it in
favors.

To understand the dynamics here, the key fact is that additional money only
helps a campaign up until it has enough to get its message to the voters. More
money after that doesn't impact the result.

~~~
lostmyoldone
Political parties and their representatives stopped trying to _only_ get their
message to voters a long time ago. Today they want to target - and preferably
close to drown - each person with the sequence of messages, video clips,
social media reactions, and sound bites that are most likely to get you to
vote for them, based on as much data as possible, and oftentimes both using
and abusing every cognitive weakness we humans tend to have.

This is almost indistinguishable from what used to be called propaganda, and
generally seen as somewhat problematic even before it was inundated with
individual targeting and the ungodly amount of realpolitik we see today.

This is not a game where there is ever enough money, and it can work
terrifyingly good, almost no matter what agenda you push, as long as the
agenda is all that you care about.

Sure it might come tumbling down one day, if the lies becomes to obvious. The
damage will still have been done at that point.

If history has taught us anything, it seem to be more of the opposite of what
you claim.

~~~
BurningFrog
That's your personal analysis.

What I said wasn't my opinion, it's the consensus from the research that's
been done on this.

Anyone who lived through the 2010 California governors race could also see
Brown being outspent 5:1, and win easily.

There is a correlation/causation illusion here: The (A) winner in votes
usually also has the (B) biggest donation to the campaign. Can you see the two
main reasons why A causes B, and not the reverse?

------
haolez
I like this idea, but I think that the biggest risk would be in the legal
assistants needed to navigate the sea of bureaucracy that legislative work
usually needs.

The lottery-selected citizens would come and go, but the assistant would
probably remain in office for several “elections”. The selected citizens would
probably be oblivious to what’s currently going on and the assistants would
have incentives to influence those overwhelmed citizens to the assistant’s own
agenda.

~~~
macintux
That's a common argument against term limits: by shifting the burden of
institutional memory even farther away from the elected officials, you're
further empowering the bureaucrats.

~~~
BiteCode_dev
Isn't already the case though?

If yes, it should not prevent us from tying out term limit, only push us to
also add some mechanism to deal with bureaucrats.

~~~
macintux
It also further empowers the lobbyists, which adds to the risks. A government
full of ignorant people will tend to fall back on those who seem to know what
they're talking about.

~~~
BiteCode_dev
Lobbying is a problem on its own, and should be dealt with anyway, and
independently of other changes to the system.

There is no way to preserve democracy when there is a legal path for bribing
those in charge of power.

------
buboard
While the Athenians were true about giving real power to everyone (rather than
a facade of power in the form of vote every 4 years) , only the citizens who
were male had the privilege. Non citizens , women and slaves could not. Still,
their model was more inclusive than democracy ( as most household had a
chance, instead of 51% as is typical in democracy today).

Such an arrangement would lead to much-less-regulated societies, as people
would be wary of weaponized legislation that can be used by their neighbor.

There is also something to be said about how contemporary democratic politics
have been turned to emotional porn

You could also mix sortition with elections to minimize power plays, like the
way they elected the Doge of Venice:

> _New regulations for the elections of the doge introduced in 1268 remained
> in force until the end of the republic in 1797. Their intention was to
> minimize the influence of individual great families, and this was effected
> by a complex electoral machinery. Thirty members of the Great Council,
> chosen by lot, were reduced by lot to nine; the nine chose forty and the
> forty were reduced by lot to twelve, who chose twenty-five. The twenty-five
> were reduced by lot to nine, and the nine elected forty-five. These forty-
> five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and the eleven finally chose
> the forty-one who elected the doge.[19] Election required at least twenty-
> five votes out of forty-one, nine votes out of eleven or twelve, or seven
> votes out of nine electors.[20]_

~~~
wool_gather
That Venetian scheme is interesting, but ultimately it reminds me of a non-
cryptographer trying to roll their own secure random number generator. Thirty
chosen by lot, then by lot reduced to nine? Eh? Just choose nine to start
with.

Moreover (on the assumption that all the people chosen at each step are on the
Council, which isn't clear) this looks like a system that will be absolutely
rife with horsetrading and intrigue: "I'll vote for you on the eleven, as long
as you (vote for P to the forty-one|support my housing bill|etc)". It may not
be corruption from outside, but the intricate machinations of an in-group
don't lend themselves to representative democracy either.

~~~
buboard
> Just choose nine to start with.

They probably wanted multiple rounds to minimize lottery fraud

------
rayiner
I've long thought this would be a great idea, although given the differences
in communities it would probably make most sense to implement this at the
state or even local level.

I do find it this statement odd:

> These assemblies are part of a wider conversation, and in this conversation,
> there should also be a place for social movements: the reasoned deliberation
> of disinterested citizens should not come at the cost of the voices of those
> _who have stakes in the issues being debated._ ... For example, the British
> environmental movement Extinction Rebellion lists a citizens’ assembly on
> climate and ecological justice as one of its demands.

People who want more democracy are often rather selective about what the
legitimate scope of that democracy should be. Consistently less than 5% of
voters believe that the environment/climate change is the most important issue
facing the country: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-
problem.asp...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-
problem.aspx). (By contrast over 20% say immigration.) Climate change,
moreover, seems like one of those issues that affects everyone, rather than
one of those issues--like say marriage quality or affirmative action--where
certain individuals have particularly strong "stakes in the issues being
debated." Such a broad policy choice--embodying fundamental trade-offs between
present discomfort and future risk--would seem _most appropriate_ for
resolution by an impartial panel of randomly selected citizens.

------
Zenst
If we had a more granular democratic say that was counted above and beyond a
token X in a limited choice of option every 4-5 years with those options
promises being no guarantee that what was on the tin is what you will get.
Then maybe we would have more harmony and progress.

Imagine if you will that every voter had the ability to submit their idea's
for other voters to support/debate and the top ones go onto being voted into
policy. For some they could just vote upon the policey, if they choose, be
their choise.

But that would take technology that was trusted. But then voting
democratically is something that happens in so many countries, be great if
there was an open/auditable standard of such a system that the people could
get behind. Facebook and other social media is not that solution.

Today we have a token say periodically with those representatives being driven
by media, that is in part driven equally by events and social media reaction
to those events. It is messy, informal, rabble driven mess and that is what
plays out in politics. Yes that needs to change, but it needs to change slowly
to allow people to adjust or you will create just as much friction as you are
trying to solve.

But for letting goverment being decided as a lottery, well - look at jury
duty, that is how that works. You can find good examples of this as you can
bad examples. So on average you could say that you would be no worse off. But
the extreme's could potentially be larger. Let's face it, what are the odds of
a lottery picking all KKK members as a government - they are not zero. That's
all that needs to be said upon that idea.

~~~
js8
This already exists, it's called initiative and I believe that some of the
U.S. states even implement it. See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States)

Representation, referendum, initiative and lottery are all just different
tools in the toolkit of democracy. They all have advantages and disadvantages,
and ideally, they should be used as such.

So for example lottery is great if you want people who are good representation
of common interest (i.e. not corrupt), but of course it suffers that these
people might not be experts or interested in the problem. Lottery is probably
the best for advisory or supervisory boards.

~~~
Zenst
Interesting and was not aware of this (Being UK peon), glad that voting
ballots have at least shown some form of expression beyond an X and embraced
it. In the UK, anything than a single X in a box will void the ballot
paper/vote.

EDIT [Autotype correction - embarrassed into embraced - opps]

------
harimau777
I could see scaling being a problem.

For this to work I think you would need enough representatives that different
segments of the society would consistently have their concerns represented.
However, I'm not sure that would be viable with a country as large and diverse
as the US.

The lottery system would also likely work best when the representatives knew
that they would be held accountable socially for their actions. However, that
likely requires a more localized society, greater shared worldview, and less
inequality that we currently have in America.

I could see a lottery system working at the state or local level. However, it
seems like most of the issues that society is currently facing (climate
change, inequality, etc.) are ones that can only be solved at a national
level.

------
karaterobot
The article focuses on demographic representation and campaign reform. There
are benefits to both of those, but to me the strongest argument in favor of
sortition is that it cleans out the stable every few years. It seems like some
government corruption comes from either being so secure in your position that
you feel a sense of impunity, or else being so insecure in your position that
you promise favors in exchange for later support. Knowing you'd only ever have
one term in office, but not who your successor would be, would at least
resolve those issues.

On the other hand, it might just push the corruption down the ladder, to the
class of functionaries who stay in government as advisors for these people.

------
leoc
From 1268 the oligarcial Venetian republic used a multi-round system of
elections and selections by lot to choose the Doge. Apparently that system
actually had a lot going for it
[https://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf](https://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf)
, and the fact that it and the Venetian republic endured for over 500 years
after 1268 seems to support that idea. So this is probably the sort of model
the US should be seriously considering to reform its somewhat broken
electoral/political system, and specifically how it appoints its chief
executive. It's discouraging that instead the only systems which seem to have
any support or awareness are fully direct election and the system of
(weighted-but-otherwise-)effectively-direct election which is already in
place.

------
rocqua
If we do this, we'd be lead by whatever accidental majority gets in. And they
have no incentive to do what the people want.

The only saving grace would be that people have more of a sense of duty, and
thus are less likely to abuse their power. But beyond that any unlucky draw
could really screw over a country.

~~~
jessriedel
What greater incentive do current voters have for picking the correct
policy/representative? Either way, people with power are balancing their
personal interest with justice / the public interest.

~~~
rocqua
Voters don't, but politicians have incentive to listen to voters, rather than
being totally in it for themselves. In other words, the desire to be re-
elected causes politicians to listen to the people, rather than do whatever
they want. At least, that is the theory.

~~~
jessriedel
Sure, politicians might have to listen to voters, but if voters themselves are
selfish then how does that help? Like, if we are worried about the
hypothetical winners of the sortition lottery would legislate selfishly,
shouldn't we worry just as much that normal voters will elect politicians who
will pass legislation that furthers the voters' selfish interests?

~~~
rocqua
If you aggregate the selfish interests of all voters, you get a better
reflection of what society wants than if you average the selfish interests of
1000 people chosen at random.

------
chapium
This system relies heavily on a well informed populace, which is a bit shaky
in our current democracy today.

~~~
zanybear
It also nudges the state towards a well informed populace over years...

------
marcinzm
Wouldn't the lack of accountability and long term involvement (ie: re-
elections) simple mean that those chosen would have an incentive to funnel as
much money to themselves and their friends as possible?

------
NeroVanbierv
Belgian writer David van Reybrouck has written a very interesting book on this
topic: Against elections. [https://www.amazon.com/Against-Elections-David-Van-
Reybrouck...](https://www.amazon.com/Against-Elections-David-Van-
Reybrouck/dp/1847924220)

------
_bxg1
What a terrible idea. Being a representative isn't just about beliefs, it
requires expertise in statecraft. There are so many better ways to solve the
stated problem.

~~~
ci5er
> Being a representative isn't just about beliefs, it requires expertise in
> statecraft.

I suspect you don't live in the United States - or have never watched these
representatives in action in their various sessions and places of work,
because ... elections are a beauty contest that are simply a reflection of a
candidate's ability to campaign, and have nothing to do with the actual
ability of the representative to capably do their job.

~~~
Zardoz84
Sadly, this happens on nearly all modern democracies.

------
motohagiography
Random just means without reproducible information about inputs. There is
nothing additionally equitable in deciding an outcome (more representation by
favoured minority groups) and then calling the selection process “random.” Are
airport screening selections random, or just opaque?

What the author is in effect advocating is an opaque process whose outcome
reflects some desirable criteria. Presumably if one disagrees, it is because
of some modern heresy, and articles like these are really about identifying
reactionaries and other counter-revolutionary types who will not sustain
cognitive dissonance for the cause. What can I say, I am provoked.

~~~
Zenst
When it comes to random - ask yourself this:

People mostly accept the results of a lottery draw, if the same system was
used to pick politicians, then we all deep-down just know - people would
question the results more and more. Indeed I'd expect headline reports that a
Russian satalite was flying overhead when the draw took place and effected
gravity and the results and they should be voided. Just how society works.

But if you printed out a list of random numbers printed out upon a page of A4
and produced 10 pages. Then asked a group of people to pick which of the 10
pages is the most random. Well, the result would be enlightening into what
random is and what individual perspective of random is.

One person's random is another person's pattern.

~~~
motohagiography
I can see how some people like the idea of legitimizing irreproducible
results, but they don’t bear scrutiny and it’s no way to transfer power. I
also don’t think it is reasonable to dismiss someone who writes for the
walrus, whose piece was edited by someone there, as an innumerate and naive
lightweight. An agenda seems much more plausible.

------
api
The 2016 presidential election was well within sampling error, so we kind of
did.

~~~
whamlastxmas
Was it? Didn't DT overwhelmingly win the electoral college?

~~~
api
I was referring to the popular vote. HRC won there but by such a small margin
it was well within sampling error.

I think we should have a runoff in that case. Drop all the other candidates
and have just HRC vs DT. Of course I'm also not a fan of the electoral college
system.

~~~
whamlastxmas
She won popular vote by over a million I thought? Is that within sampling
error?

------
agumonkey
A broader sequel to the Dice Man ?

~~~
OscarCunningham
It's the plot to P.K. Dick's first published novel "Solar Lottery".

> The operating principle was random selection: positions of public power were
> decided by a sophisticated lottery and when the magnetic lottery bottle
> twitched, anyone could become the absolute ruler of the world, the
> Quizmaster.

> But with the power came the game – the assassination game – which everyone
> could watch on TV. Would the new man be good enough to evade his chosen
> killer? Which made for fascinating and exciting viewing, compelling enough
> to distract the public’s attention while the Big Five industrial complexes
> ran the world. Then, in 2203, with the choice of a member of a maverick cult
> as Quizmaster, the system developed a little hitch…

------
jrochkind1
could it be much worse?? I'm willing to give it a try.

------
macspoofing
Be careful what you wish for. Do you really want the policy to reflect popular
polling? Really really? Because what the public supports is a mixed bag. Maybe
the population will support higher healthcare spending but also greatly
restricted immigration policy ... or leaving a beneficial trade-block due to
fears of Eastern European immigrants. Contrast this to Switzerland, where
we've seen popular anti-immigration measures being 'tweaked' by more level-
headed politicians who realize there are larger issues at play.

There is something to be said about policies put forward by sophisticated and
educated elites.

~~~
1556
The "tweaking" that you refer to sounds exactly like British immigration
policy in the decades preceding the EU referendum. It didn't solve anything,
resentment just built up and eventually overflowed. And the end result is far
more damaging than it would have been to just listen in the first place.

~~~
macspoofing
If they didn't adjust the policy they would be in the same place as Britain is
with Brexit today.

~~~
todd-davies
I think this has a point, though the author's meaning is ambiguous.

To elaborate, if the Swiss govt directly implemented popular policy
viewpoints, then fears of immigration could have brought about a Brexit type
situation in a way similar to how the UK Government had a yes/no referendum
that implemented the 'popular' policy of Brexit.

