Election by lottery

[tetley]

If you're not open to the idea of kings its because academia and the mainstream media have brainwashed you

I am not open to the idea of kings and the mainstream media are liars.

 

[onejayhawk]

One could argue that monarchy is a lottery, in that the circumstances in which you are born is luck of the draw. But I don't think that is what is meant here.

Hereditary monarchies yes. Many or most monarchies have been otherwise.

Imperial Rome was a non-hereditary monarchy to a large degree. That was stable. Many countries have usurpers, which are monarchs til they are overthrown. One single generation monarch after another. North Korea and Cuba are monarchies today. You do not want to go that direction.

J

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Here in the US, 4 out of 10 Americans think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. 80% believe in miracles. 25% of people don't know that the Earth revolves around the sun instead of the other way around. ONly 19% believe that life evolved from natural processes. Source on this stuff.

This is the kind of thing that makes me answer an emphatic NO to this question. Our leaders being elected randomly is pretty much my worst nightmare.

 

[warpus]

Just make it so that the only people who enter the lottery are people who are able to complete a simple Kerbal space program mission involving a Mun landing and a return trip.

That might seem like an odd standard, but I have a feeling that this would actually work no worse than any other standard you can devise, in terms of giving us leaders who actually understand how basic things in this universe work and why some things are the way they are.

 

[Zelig]

80% believe in miracles.

To be fair, I've co-opted the term to refer to any extremely low-probability event.

Like plane crashes.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

To be fair, I've co-opted the term to refer to any extremely low-probability event.

Like plane crashes.

Right, we all use it colloquially, but I was referring specifically to supernatural miracles .

 

[gay_Aleks]

Hereditary monarchies yes. Many or most monarchies have been otherwise.

Imperial Rome was a non-hereditary monarchy to a large degree. That was stable. Many countries have usurpers, which are monarchs til they are overthrown. One single generation monarch after another. North Korea and Cuba are monarchies today. You do not want to go that direction.

J

It's monarchy, like most monarchies, were stable so long as the state and people were also stable and prosperous. Once these two things disappeared after 400 AD, the monarchy went to hell.

 

[onejayhawk]

It's monarchy, like most monarchies, were stable so long as the state and people were also stable and prosperous. Once these two things disappeared after 400 AD, the monarchy went to hell.

Which declined first, the quality of the leadership or the empire?

J

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, both at the same time? The era of Five Good Emperors was long gone, and now incompetent fools took over, while simultaneously everything started collapsing.

 

[Borachio]

To be fair, I've co-opted the term to refer to any extremely low-probability event.

Like plane crashes.

Strange. I call those accidents. Or sometimes coincidences.

"Miracles" I reserve for things like finding my car keys in under 10 minutes.

 

[Hygro]

I'm basically for it.

 

[Pangur Bán]

The Labour council in Glasgow wants to staff community councils with members chosen by lottery so it doesn't have to overcome knowledgeable and motivated local leaders when shafting local communities.

That highlights one of the issues with the proposal. However, at 'national' levels, esp. in the US and UK, the politicians are basically play-things of the superich who rule the people through these nominally-accountable representatives and through the media. I think lottery politicians would cut through a lot of the institutions which help the elite dominate the ordinary person; a politician is likely to listen to a corporate think tank, an ordinary person might listen to a old-fashioned socially-orientated charity; a politician knows what rhetoric to use and how to maintain deniability for his corruption, the ordinary person doesn't and would be forced to behave more honestly. TBH, I haven't really thought it through, but these good points spring to mind.

 

[jackelgull]

I think that some people have the surprising ability to respond to being given a leadership position. I don't necessarily think that the average person can't do it, and even not knowing how the universe works doesn't discount them from a position. To be a politician, the most important thing is an understanding of how people work. And really, this just cuts right to the heart of the problem with any organized system to choose leaders- it is a gamble to see whether the right person is chosen to lead at the right time.

 

[Tahuti]

I think that some people have the surprising ability to respond to being given a leadership position. I don't necessarily think that the average person can't do it, and even not knowing how the universe works doesn't discount them from a position. To be a politician, the most important thing is an understanding of how people work. And really, this just cuts right to the heart of the problem with any organized system to choose leaders- it is a gamble to see whether the right person is chosen to lead at the right time.

One of the premises of electoral democracy is that people who vote as one out of many necessarily would choose the same if their choice would definitely mean their guy/lass of choice would get elected, the way a king appoints his ministers. Which is very clearly not true, given the existence of tactical voting.

Ultimately, it is impossible to weed out bad politicians, statesmen and kings. The very least that can be done is to eliminate institutions that effectively reward bad behavior, and the close integration of media and electoral politics is one of them.

 

[James Stuart]

Of the course, the downsides may be that parliaments are more prone to ignoring human factors, since these have arguably lesser influence on politics. Also, bad luck can fill a parliament full of incompetents.

So just like our current democracies then?

I'm personally torn on this. The pros for me are that it pretty much culls the negative aspects of democracies. Though my reservation are that it risks taking the humanity from politics, which means a big deal for me.

So just like our current democracies then?

I think this is a bad idea for reasons I will elucidate below, but it certainly couldn't be any worse than the current Australian government.

Not be a detractor for a more direct (ish) democracy but the modern problems facing the world and the nation are simply far too complex to not require career politicians. I know some of them seem incompetent but honestly I really think that alot of that is just theater. For the most part I'd guess that a good majority of the political leadership is quite well educated, their personal motives are the negative.

I completely agree with this. While there is the occasionsal mind-boggling idiot in politics - Sarah Palin, Tony Abbott, Pauline Hanson - the majority do actually have the education and background to effectively run a state. Especially under the Westminster system, which has an extremely long apprenticeship period; the Washington system is easier to skip a few steps in.

What you would do is empower the bureaucracy. There have been some satrical stories along this line. The constant thread is that someone is always in charge. If it is not the elected official, it is the unelected official. The same happens when you put too many obstuctions in front of a parliament.

J

Sounds like Japan.

Hereditary monarchies yes. Many or most monarchies have been otherwise.

Indeed. Ireland, Poland, the HRE (until the Hapsburgs achieved dominance), etc., were non-hereditary monarchies. Even Portugal's obsession with bastards might count. Hereditary monarchies are the most common form, but far from the only one.

Imperial Rome was a non-hereditary monarchy to a large degree. That was stable.

Hang on, what? Rome was an insanely unstable state. It survived as long as it did because it was rich, not because it was stable. As soon as Gaul reached the point where it could provide an alternative power locus to Italy, the Empire was dead in less than a century. Prior to that, it was worth more to usurp the throne than to establish a break-away state. Byzantium was similar.

Which declined first, the quality of the leadership or the empire?

J

It was not simply one or the other. There were several different factors that led to a decline in both the Empire and its leadership.

The real issue was that Italy lost its pre-eminent position as the wealthiest part of the Empire, meaning that an aspiring Emperor no longer required control of it to establish himself. The result was if a general launched an insurrection and failed to take Italy, he was not necessarily eliminated as a threat, which had been the case previously. Elites began to look for local strongmen to protect them, as the Emperor was usually busy beating down his own rebellious generals in Italy and Gaul. This led to a series of devastating civil wars at the exact time as the 'barbarians' - in reality, just Roman armies that had abandoned loyalty to any Imperial claimant in exchange for loyalty to their generals - were on the move.

The loss of Africa to the Vandals was especially devastating, as it created a food-supply crisis. Unlike previous invaders, the Vandals, as their name implied, elected to destroy infrastructure rather than utilise it, with their capital at Carthage apparently the only exception. We aren't really sure why they did this, but my own theory is that their limited numbers invited an uprising, so they destroyed the infrastructure necessary to maintain one; hunger as a weapon. Attempts to reclaim Africa failed due to contingent events, such as the Roman invasion fleet being destroyed by a storm, and the reforms that split the Empire in two deprived the Western Emperors of alternate sources of grain, tax, and manpower.

The decline of the ability of the Emperors to control their Empire - and contrary to common belief, there were some very talented Emperors in the last few decades, they simply died early or had bad luck - had the side-effect of making the position of Emperor less valuable in its own right; hence, the rise of figureheads, which had previously been unknown in Roman politics. An eleven year old boy could never have been Emperor at any other time. This meant that it eventually became possible for a Roman general of 'barbarian' origin, Odoacer, to see more value in assuming a barbarian title, King of Italy, than making himself or his figurehead Emperor.

So the Empire died, but not without a struggle. The Byzantines made multiple attempts at reconquest, which failed due to bad luck - the rise of the Parthians, an attack of plague, a riot in Constantinople - more than a lack of ability on Byzantium's part. The last Roman governor of Gaul maintained control of that province more than a decade after the last Emperor was overthrown. There were still petty kings using the title 'Augustus' a century after the Empire fell.

Ultimately, it is impossible to weed out bad politicians, statesmen and kings. The very least that can be done is to eliminate institutions that effectively reward bad behavior, and the close integration of media and electoral politics is one of them.

If you kill Rupert Murdoch, I will testify as a character witness on your behalf.

 

[Leoreth]

Leaving the question of whether a random person would on average do a better job at governing than the typical politician aside, where does accountability come in?

While I don't disagree that democracies sometimes fail at holding politicians accountable for corruption or failure, at least elections provide some sort of accountability for bad governing.

So I'm a random guy who has just been promoted to decide policy for a community of some size. What motivates me to act in the interest of anyone in the community (besides myself, as far as my power allows)? I don't even need their votes.

Even without assuming selfish intent in the average person I'd only expect apathy.

Indeed. Ireland, Poland, the HRE (until the Hapsburgs achieved dominance), etc., were non-hereditary monarchies. Even Portugal's obsession with bastards might count. Hereditary monarchies are the most common form, but far from the only one.

Is the HRE an actual example? It seems that generally speaking, while the Habsburgs transformed it into a hereditary monarchy most of the power shifted to the hereditary princes of the empire (and some prince-bishops).

 

[gay_Aleks]

And considering that after the 30 Years War, it was rather hard to distinguish HRE as an actual state rather than a bickering coalition of some sort that was compromised of various princes and bishops, I'm not even sure if it was even a monarchy.

 

[Tahuti]

Is the HRE an actual example? It seems that generally speaking, while the Habsburgs transformed it into a hereditary monarchy most of the power shifted to the hereditary princes of the empire (and some prince-bishops).

The problem with modern democratic elections compared to elective monarchs and parliaments elected by other parliaments is that in electoral democracies the electorate are simply quantitatively too large to assert effective electoral pressure on incumbents. There is no effective communication between incumbent politicians and their voters, so the latter relies on the media (which isn't exactly known for presenting the viewpoints of others correctly) to make a decision.

And no amount of checks and balances and direct democracy can ever fix this because this is a matter of math: There is a maximum number at which individual persons can maintain stable social ties (150 to 300), and electoral democratic mechanisms exceed this number massively. Thus politicians can only be held accountable if they are voted into office by those that actually know him

 

[Leoreth]

I didn't actually want to delve further into the differences between elective monarchies and electoral democracies, I was just asking if the HRE is a relevant example for an elective monarchy in this case.

Even if you are right that democratic accountability can only work when there are direct personal ties, how is it a solution to replace that by a lottery where there is no accountability at all as far as I can see?

 

[tetley]

Leoreth brings up a good point, but I would add another style into the mix: a religious lottery. You pray to your god for divine providence, and you draw lots. Maybe that works better? I think it's a given that clearly that is the best arrangement assuming the god is real and he blesses that appeal to His judgement. But it becomes a lot more debatable if they only think there is.