Election by lottery

[Borachio]

How about a wealth lottery?

We could divvy up the world's wealth by drawing lots. And we could do that every jubilee.

You could even have a lottery to determine where people get to live for the next 50 years, too. A "post code lottery" lottery.

 

[tetley]

I am decidedly against all those things, of course. I think a nation with millions of people needs to pick the best leader to lead them. The lottery is based on a premise similar to index funds: It is a proven fact that monkeys picking stocks can outperform professional mutual fund managers. The BEST mutual funds outperform monkeys, but the majority of mutual funds don't. And you don't know for sure which one you are buying in to at the time you buy in.

 

[Leoreth]

So your solution is to put monkeys on thrones?

Mankind figured out that strategy millennia ago.

 

[Borachio]

I am decidedly against all those things, of course. I think a nation with millions of people needs to pick the best leader to lead them.

So this is an aristocracy by definition, then?

But I'm confused. Why do you think we need someone to lead us?

 

[Pangur Bán]

The current system of picking political leaders is based on how Machiavellian and psychopathic they are, how much the economic establishment like them, and how good they are at manipulating the populace via mass media. That's got sweet nothing to do with leading a country well. Those aren't the best country managers, arguably they are the worst as far as 99% of the population is concerned.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Rethoric for votes and electoral campaigns are no longer relevant.

But rhetoric for convincing the public is still very relevant. And that's a good thing. We want national dialogue to continue; we want thinly disguised bribery (campaign contributions) to stop.

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

This.

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.

You get the same pay whether you vote responsibly or irresponsibly. Your stay in parliament is temporary, and your reputation will matter afterward. Why not try to do the right thing? And if you're super lazy, you won't even attend sessions, and your nonexistent vote won't matter.

Of course, you could try to sell yourself to Citibank in exchange for a cushy "revolving door" job after your term. But this problem already exists. I don't see it getting much worse. It might even get better, since skill at smooth-talk and lying is not selected for, when parliamentarians are selected by lottery. Average Joe might be less willing to risk jail, and less adept at avoiding it if he tries.

Which brings up the one valid objection I see: stupidity. Yes, our politicians are mostly smarter than average, not just better communicators. So there's our dilemma: ruled by stupid, or by evil? We've tried evil. I'm willing to try stupid.

 

[James Stuart]

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?

Of course it's a valid example of an elective monarchy. Until the Hapsburgs took charge permanently, the position was only gained through competitive - if corrupt - elections, and the Hapsburgs eventually emerged triumphant because they were able to meet the needs of their electors more effectively than anyone else. I did qualify that the HRE was only an elective monarch until Hapsburg dominance of the electoral process kicked in.

 

[Tahuti]

But rhetoric for convincing the public is still very relevant. And that's a good thing. We want national dialogue to continue; we want thinly disguised bribery (campaign contributions) to stop.

I think that lobbying and campaign contributions are an inherent problem to electoral democracy. People are elected on the basis elections and they do not want to destroy the electoral structures that can ensure their power. My attraction to hereditary power structures is that they weaken the influence of money from politics.

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?

The most important thing is that lottery removes the illusion of voting accountability we haven't had in the first place.

I think what Ayatollah So says is also the point I wanted the make.

 

[tetley]

So this is an aristocracy by definition, then?

But I'm confused. Why do you think we need someone to lead us?

No, it's a meritocracy. Head of State is to be viewed as a job, not a privilege. It has responsibilities, prerequisites, and qualifications, and it needs to be staffed, just like any other skilled job. In a nation of 1.2 billion people like China, I believe there is one single person best fit to lead. Is it Hu Jintao? No. Has that one person ever led China--or any country, for that matter? I doubt it. I am speaking in ideal terms.

But I will grant that our choice for leader can be so bad, so sub-ideal, that we would be better off without a leader at all sometimes.

 

[Darkflight]

The current election system is basically a popularity contest like those TV-programs and the bureaucracy pretty much rules everything, so I don't think it would make much of a difference.

 

[Borachio]

No, it's a meritocracy. Head of State is to be viewed as a job, not a privilege. It has responsibilities, prerequisites, and qualifications, and it needs to be staffed, just like any other skilled job. In a nation of 1.2 billion people like China, I believe there is one single person best fit to lead. Is it Hu Jintao? No. Has that one person ever led China--or any country, for that matter? I doubt it. I am speaking in ideal terms.

But I will grant that our choice for leader can be so bad, so sub-ideal, that we would be better off without a leader at all sometimes.

aristos 'best' + -kratia 'power'.

Now, there's something fundamentally flawed with a meritocracy. But I've forgotten what it is, for the moment.

Is it that someone has to decide who is the best qualified? And who would that be who decides? Don't you just end up with a bureaucracy?

 

[Pangur Bán]

aristos 'best' + -kratia 'power'.

Now, there's something fundamentally flawed with a meritocracy. But I've forgotten what it is, for the moment.

Is it that someone has to decide who is the best qualified? And who would that be who decides? Don't you just end up with a bureaucracy?

Exactly. 'Meritocracy' is a pretty dumb concept if you think about it. Did warrior aristocrats think they were not in power because of merit? Did kings not think that? Of course they did. The difference between meritocrats and aristocrats is that the latter's source of legitimacy is culturally stale, while the former's is plausible to large proportion of the living population.

 

[tetley]

I'm not about to agree that meritocracy is a dumb concept. The best person for the job needs to be in office. Period. It's still a matter of the gap between the ideal and reality. The employer should decide whom that person is. In this case, that is the people. Thus a pure democratic election makes sense. Except that's where the devil in the details surfaces--things like the people don't really know any of the candidates personally, the media screens way too much of the information fed to the people, the preliminary screening process is anything but democratic (a.k.a. "I don't like any of the candidates"), the electoral college, etc..