
Instead of elections, let's use lotteries - fela
http://aeon.co/magazine/society/forget-elections-lets-pick-reps-by-lottery/
======
dudul
The article seems to miss the main reason why elections are a terrible way to
designate representatives: you are voting for people who _want_ to be in
charge, who will do whatever it takes to be in charge, and remain in power.

Elections != democracy. Elections force us to elect our masters. We elect the
people who are supposed to write the rules they have to follow. I mean... come
on. A 4th grader would see the paradox in that.

The Republic in Athens was based on the lottery and it lasted literally for
centuries.

~~~
dsp1234
I'm certainly no expert on ancient Athenian history, but this:

 _The Republic in Athens was based on the lottery and it lasted literally for
centuries._

Does not appear to be correct. It does appear that a lottery was part of the
Assembly/Ekklesia process[0]. Specifically, the Assembly elected the Boule by
lottery[1]. The original Boule (established by the statesman Salon[2]) was
established in 594 BC. However, the lottery for these positions was not
introduced until 508 BC, and initially only allowed for the top 3 "property
classes" and only to those over 30. It wasn't until the mid-5th century that
all 4 property classes were allowed to attend. Additionally, they were chosen
by lot, but only from those who chose (or were able) to attend. This left the
poorer citizens out of luck until pay was instituted for these positions[4].
Also, unlike a true lottery, it was still left to "people who _want_ to be in
charge" since the lottery was only for those who attended. Then in 322 A.D,
Macedony put the kabosh on democracy in Athens. So the lottery was only in
place for about 180 years, didn't enitirely replace the existing Areopagus and
made up a part of the Ekklesia, and was limited to 400.

I don't really see that as a good basis for the conslusion of "The Republic in
Athens was based on the lottery and it lasted literally for centuries.". It
was certainly a nice research exercise as I know little about ancient Greek
forms of democracy.

[0] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy)
"The officials of the democracy were in part elected by the Assembly and in
large part chosen by lottery."

[1] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_(ancient_Athens)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_\(ancient_Athens\))
"The ecclesia elected by lot annually the Boule or council."

[2] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy)
"In 594 BC Solon is said to have created a boule of 400 to guide the work of
the assembly."

[3] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boule_(ancient_Greece)#The_Athe...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boule_\(ancient_Greece\)#The_Athenian_Boule)
"Under the reforms of Cleisthenes enacted in 508/507 BC, the boule ... were
chosen by lot at the deme level,"

[4] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boule_(ancient_Greece)#The_Athe...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boule_\(ancient_Greece\)#The_Athenian_Boule)
" At some point in the late 5th century, pay was instituted for those serving
in the boule; this may have been a way to encourage poorer citizens to
volunteer, who would otherwise be reluctant to serve."

~~~
dudul
" initially only allowed for the top 3 "property classes" and only to those
over 30" so? The pool of candidates was restricted. Isn't it the same to vote?
Should we let 10 years old be elected?

"only from those who chose (or were able) to attend." makes perfect sense to
restrict the candidates to those interested in politics and the governance of
the city.

" the lottery was only for those who attended." Again, those involved in the
governance of the city. But was there any way for them to give priority to
their name? No, no campaign, no 'communication specialist', no POTUS twitter
account.

"So the lottery was only in place for about 180 years" So 2 centuries, what I
said.

The thing is the lottery was only one aspect of the athenian republic, how
laws were voted, how leaders were held highly accountable were also important
corner stones.

~~~
dsp1234
_The thing is the lottery was only one aspect of the athenian republic, how
laws were voted, how leaders were held highly accountable were also important
corner stones._

There appears to be a lot to like about the Athenian democratic process
(again, not an expert). However, your argument about elections vs lotteries
literally had only one thing to say about the Athenians which was "The
Republic in Athens was based on the lottery and it lasted literally for
centuries.". I find this a weak argument specifically because it's not really
true (for the reasons stated above). After all, Athens the Republic (as a
democratic process after the reforms of Salon, as compared to just Athens the
city) was already 86 years old by the time the first lottery was in place.
This reduces the power of the first part of the statement ("was based on the
lottery"). How could it be based on the lottery if the lottery did not exist
at the time the Republic was formed. Then, the lottery only lasted for 186
years (close to, but not quite "centuries"), but that too loses it's
effectiveness as an argument because the US (based on elections) is about 227
years old (counting from the first Presidential election).

So in the end, the argument (as presented, and specifically with regards to
Athens), was something to the effect of "Elections are worse than the lottery.
The Republic of Athens was based on a lottery. The Athenian lottery lasted for
centuries. This should strengthen the initial point that lotteries are better
than elections.".

However, in analysis, the statement about Athens is not good evidence for that
argument because the Athenian Republic was not based on a lottery, and while
it did last for nearly 2 centuries, it still lasted for a shorter amount of
time than the system the US is currently using.

------
richardkiss
How about let voters make their choices through an election, but then the
winner is chosen through lottery with a weighting towards how the voters
voted? So if 40% voted for A and 60% voted for B, A would still win the
lottery election 40% of the time.

This could help marginal candidates, since voters wouldn't feel like they're
throwing away their votes... any vote COULD win the election.

------
dragonwriter
> Elections are flawed and can’t be redeemed

Elections _in the US_ may be flawed, but there is quite a bit of evidence that
other electoral systems -- particularly, ones where the main legislative body
isn't elected by FPTP in single-member districts -- work much better at
providing meaningful democratic accountability, which is where the article
sees the failure of elections.

So, while I accept the conclusions that _US elections_ are flawed, I don't
accept the more general claim, or the claim that even US elections can't be
redeemed.

Sortition is interesting, and may be useful, and is certainly something that
it makes sense to try on a smaller scale. But better election systems are both
a less radical change and one more supported as effective in the modern world
and conditions by evidence which provides a clear idea of how to structure
them.

------
informatimago
Check out: [http://www.le-message.org/?lang=en](http://www.le-
message.org/?lang=en)

~~~
dudul
I really like M. Chouard's work. I wish he was more present on TV to detail
hid theories. Unfortunately people in power can't allow that, they don't want
to see their best tricks exposed.

