Voting is Undemocratic

[Ryika]

I suspect that people of certain political leanings might want to push for an age limit, but I don't see a whole lot of disagreement as being likely. There might be some negotiation as to what that age limit should be, but from a US standpoint the voting age or the minimum age to serve in congress currently are going to be the end points on the range and I doubt that anyone is going to be that excited by anything that is chosen within that range, including either endpoint.

While people of a certain political leaning tend to be more tolerant of misogyny, I don't think a "this gender should be selected for" position is going to hold any sway. The sample being selected is going to follow the gender distribution of the population well enough as long as it is a descent sample size. The people shouting in their distant corners that only men are "really qualified" to serve will be pretty much ignored.

Dude, what are you doing?

You cannot say that we need to sample for gender - nearly a 50/50 distribution, which is the most likely to be represented properly in a completely random sample - and then claim that the rest of the population will be represented "well enough as long as it is a descent sample size". You're literally sampling for the least important characteristic and ignoring the characteristics that might actually make you not be represented properly.

 

[Perfection]

Representative sampling only ever accounts for a few traits that are being seen as important to the topic. There is no way to create a sample that accounts for all traits that might differentiate one group of people in the general public from other groups (unless your sample is equal the group that you're sampling, in which case, you aren't sampling at all). The problem in creating an unbiased sample is not to create the sample, it's to decide which traits are important and must be included in the process of creating a representative sample, and which are not.

People of different political leanings will heavily disagree on which traits are important to include and which aren't, so again I ask, who will provide this unbiased sample?

If you have a large enough sample fairly selected at random from group then the law of large numbers sets and the vast majority of time you'll get a good representative sample of the groups you find relevant. As such it's unnecessary to strictly control for every relevant differentiation.

Adding demographic filters can help fix some logistical issues if you need to reduce the sample size or unbias an incomplete list but they aren't strictly neccessary.

And i should note that if you in general can't see how a group of people with diverging opinions can come up with decisions then you are fundamentally not believing in democracy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I presume this will also follow ethnic, transgender, etc. lines?

It works great in theory, but certain minorities of people (not necessarily ethnic or religious) will find themselves not represented well under such a system, due to their small numbers. So for example say there's only 100,000 Jews living in Canada. Let's say they all live in generally the same place. They are a community, but under this system they would have a small (or non-existent) voice in this system since their numbers are so small compared to the population of Canada as a whole.

Would this be a problem?

And do we also make sure we include a population representative % of vegetarians? Atheists? Satanists? Sports fans? Sports haters? People who are allergic to peanuts? How do we pick these groups and where do we draw the line?

Are they well represented under the current system? If so, how? And would the same method be applied?

If my congressional district were represented by five residents of the district chosen randomly from the adult population of the district, rather than one guy chosen primarily through name recognition acquired using money gathered for the purchase of buying advertising, which generally is sourced from people who never set foot in the district, then EVERYONE in the district would be better represented. Everyone in every district would be so much better represented that it would be well worth the expense of pentupiling the size of congress.

I'm not suggesting that a congress of 435 individuals randomly drawn from the population of the United States would be a good representation for everyone, but substituting selection for election doesn't have to involve completely abandoning current structure.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Dude, what are you doing?

You cannot say that we need to sample for gender

If I cannot say that we need to then it is a good thing that I specifically said that we don't need to, isn't it?

 

[Ryika]

Are they well represented under the current system? If so, how? And would the same method be applied?

Of course they are represented. Like everybody else, they can vote for the person they think fits their needs best.

If I cannot say that we need to then it is a good thing that I specifically said that we don't need to, isn't it?

Okay, so what if a random sample ends up selecting ... let's say, Young Earth Creationist, at 50% the rate that they should be selected? I think it's a small enough group that this might happen in a sample that small enough to be workable with the system as described in the article, so does this group then have a valid case against the system?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Okay, so what if a random sample ends up selecting ... let's say, Young Earth Creationist, at 50% the rate that they should be selected? I think it's a small enough group that this might happen in a sample that small enough to be workable with the system as described in the article, so does this group then have a valid case against the system?

The small group was previously voting for "whoever they thought represented them best" even though that person may not have specifically been "one of them," yes? So to get their chosen elected representative, that representative ALSO has to be someone who the majority think "represents them best." If that person is saying "my only interest is representing the interests of this small group" they are not going to get elected and the small group will be unrepresented...which if they have interests that are in great opposition to society as a whole is probably for the best.

Now, if we go with some sampling rather than elections, the small group faces basically the same challenge. If "their" interests are widely enough held that they might have gotten someone elected to represent such interests, then there will be people selected who share those interests even if they are not specifically in the group itself. If their interests are in opposition to society's interests as a whole then they are not likely to get representation, but they weren't through electoral process either.

So, at worst our small group is getting a wash in the deal. It may not be better, but it won't be worse.

UNLESS...

We are talking about a small group that has suborned the electoral process in order to get far more representation for their issues than is warranted. Let's say we have a small group that does have interests that are actually detrimental to a vast majority of members of society...we'll need a short name to call them for ease of discussion...we'll call them "filthy rich with inherited wealth," or maybe just "rich," for convenience. In the electoral process they have such outsized influence that even with their small numbers and the fact that their interests are totally antithetical to society at large they STILL are well represented. Could they have a valid case against a new system? Maybe, but probably not. The money they currently spend convincing people at large that things that are actually bad for the people at large are good things leads those people to vote for politicians who support those things would be spent pretty much the same way, and our random sampling would be polluted with people who buy into their BS.

The benefit of such a system comes AFTER the selection. My congressman's ONLY order of business upon reaching Washington was to ensure his re-election. That happens in the phone bank, not the chamber, and he seldom if ever calls anyone in the district looking for funds. He calls the big GOP donors nationwide and pitches himself as a good reliable GOP vote, constituents be damned. Seeing "how things are done in Washington" didn't repulse him. He took to it like a fish dropped into water since his initial process of getting elected had almost nothing to do with him being representative of his constituents anyway. The randomly selected resident of the district, upon arrival, has no particular reason to not be representative of the district. They don't need nationwide fundraising.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Voting is democratic but it is often made that not all votes are counted equally.

Drawing of funny lines and numerous other ways of disenfranchisement cause real problems.

And yea the elites believe people are stupid and screw things up. While true, they also need a mirror since they too are human.

 

[AdrienIer]

Well, if you look at cities like the one I live in, which has a 'contractual structure,' you get around that problem to a degree, though it may create another. My city has a mayor, who is nothing more than the member of the city council who chairs their meetings and signs their paperwork. The city council, collectively and by vote, provides 'direction and decision' to the city manager, who is hired to be the chief executive of the city staff.

On some level, the city council, including the mayor, don't really do much of anything. The city staff, under the direction of the city manager really run everything. But direction and decision is all very carefully laid out in the responsibilities of the city manager. If the city records office is running out of space he can't just go buy a building, or rent one, or decide which records need to be thrown out, he has to inform the council of the problem and present the various options and request a decision from them. So, really, they don't need much in the way of knowledge or experience, they just need to be willing to pay attention and assess the options presented. If the council were drawn by lot rather than election it would probably work just as well, if not better, than what we have now in terms of knowledge. The council also, usually in response to harassment by constituent or constituents, can provide directions that were not asked for, like "bring us some sort of plans for dealing with the pothole situation in front of this guy's house so he doesn't keep showing up and raving at us during council meetings."

The problem would be that people drawn by lot may well not have wanted the job at all. I mean, not as in "I didn't really want to have this job," but "I very much wanted not to have this job." Such conscripts may look at the city manager and say "yeah, whatever, leave me alone." That really wouldn't work. But if you institute some plan to avoid the conscripts you are opening up opportunities for manipulation.

Sorry for responding so late. The simple solution would be for anyone to be able to opt out, at some cost like not being able to vote (if the system is a dual sortition/election one) for the duration of his/her supposed term. Then someone else gets sorted instead, presumably someone who cares enough about helping out.

 

[warpus]

Are they well represented under the current system? If so, how? And would the same method be applied?

If my congressional district were represented by five residents of the district chosen randomly from the adult population of the district, rather than one guy chosen primarily through name recognition acquired using money gathered for the purchase of buying advertising, which generally is sourced from people who never set foot in the district, then EVERYONE in the district would be better represented. Everyone in every district would be so much better represented that it would be well worth the expense of pentupiling the size of congress.

I'm not suggesting that a congress of 435 individuals randomly drawn from the population of the United States would be a good representation for everyone, but substituting selection for election doesn't have to involve completely abandoning current structure.

I see what you mean. I have no rebuttal. Still important to keep in mind how this will impact those communities that are easily disenfranchised, when any part of this is being implemented, IMO.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sorry for responding so late. The simple solution would be for anyone to be able to opt out, at some cost like not being able to vote (if the system is a dual sortition/election one) for the duration of his/her supposed term. Then someone else gets sorted instead, presumably someone who cares enough about helping out.

There may be danger down that path. Who are the more likely to say "yeah, pass" and who are the more likely to say "Drive the car! You BET I will drive the car!" Not a catastrophic stopper, just a consideration.

I see what you mean. I have no rebuttal. Still important to keep in mind how this will impact those communities that are easily disenfranchised, when any part of this is being implemented, IMO.

I take no rebuttal as high praise...and agree that the concern is certainly valid.

I'm not saying that I am out and out for this thing. It just seems like every drawback pointed out can be met with "yeah, that goes just as badly and probably worse now, so maybe this is a good idea."

 

[warpus]

It just seems like every drawback pointed out can be met with "yeah, that goes just as badly and probably worse now, so maybe this is a good idea."

Well, it depends. Maybe I just didn't have enough time to really think things through.

Consider a community of Sikhs living in some country where they are in the vast minority. As a % of the population of the country they are rather insignificant, but their pure population numbers are not so insignificant really. A lot of them have settled in one particular riding, in which they are still the minority, but have enough of a presence there to result in some "election swinging" powers.

So let's say that this riding is more likely than not to be represented by someone who is a Sikh, as a result of all of the above. Under the new scheme, this group would lose this voice, as they would lose that "swing voter" type power.

I suppose you could argue that swing voters are not a good thing, but in this particular scenario it gives a minority a voice. So I'm not really sure how I feel about it really. Seems to me that it's easier to insert such "minority giving powers" to minority groups in a democracy, but much harder if you are picking candidates randomly out of the population. Minorities always lose out there, by virtue of being in the minority.

 

[Arwon]

lot of them have settled in one particular riding, in which they are still the minority, but have enough of a presence there to result in some "election swinging" powers.

The problem is this only works for geographically concentrated interest groups

 

[warpus]

The problem is this only works for geographically concentrated interest groups

Yeah, it seems to work for physical communities. You are right that there are a lot of minorities that are more spread out and don't concentrate in one place so much that it wouldn't work for.

You're 100% right about that, the mechanism I'm describing is more of a sideffect and not a real plan to try to help everyone equally. I'm just pointing out that it seems to be a positive thing in some places that I've seen, so it might be worthwhile making sure that those who lose this power are helped out in other ways maybe, so that you're not just taking representative type powers from minority communities without really studying the impact before you do that.

 

[Arwon]

Possibly more to the point is that things like proportional representation do better at this. And the democratisation of internal party structures and change in internal party policies is probably the better response to poor representativity than a representation lottery. If you have to run a lottery to get a diverse set of politicians, that's a failure of the parties, and to a certain extent a failure of electoral systems, rather than the very concept of electoral politics.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

In a bicameral legislature I would not mind having one house chosen by sortition, but I would not want them to enact laws by themselves without an elected house (or maybe a voter referendum) having to approve their bills.

 

[uppi]

The benefit of such a system comes AFTER the selection. My congressman's ONLY order of business upon reaching Washington was to ensure his re-election.

The question is, what happens if you make reelection impossible or at least extremely unlikely (like being chosen twice in a sortition system). Of course it would remove the pressure to worry about reelection, but it may remove too much pressure to the point, where only personal integrity stops you from milking your term for personal benefit as much as possible.

Sorry for responding so late. The simple solution would be for anyone to be able to opt out, at some cost like not being able to vote (if the system is a dual sortition/election one) for the duration of his/her supposed term. Then someone else gets sorted instead, presumably someone who cares enough about helping out.

The problem would be that there would likely be groups that would opt out at a higher rate than others. For example, single mothers with small children might be very reluctant to take up that duty. If you take away their vote as well, you will end up with groups that have no representation at all.

In a bicameral legislature I would not mind having one house chosen by sortition, but I would not want them to enact laws by themselves without an elected house (or maybe a voter referendum) having to approve their bills.

I wonder whether you could have a mixed parliament. For example, 3 parts in 5 are elected and 2 parts in 5 would be sortitioned. You would still have professional politicians, but without convincing at least some of the lay politicians, they would be unlikely to achieve anything.

Putting everything to a referendum would be overkill, but it might be enough to make referendums whether to veto laws very easy to demand, like in Switzerland. The threat of a referendum is sometimes as effective as the referendum itself and much more cost-efficient.

 

[Traitorfish]

Tldr: Voting has been captured by vested interests and is run by elites, we should draw lots by socio-economic groups to create a new House of Parliament.

Sounds like something Mussolini would come up with tbh.

Possibly more to the point is that things like proportional representation do better at this. And the democratisation of internal party structures and change in internal party policies is probably the better response to poor representativity than a representation lottery. If you have to run a lottery to get a diverse set of politicians, that's a failure of the parties, and to a certain extent a failure of electoral systems, rather than the very concept of electoral politics.

A lot of Americans seem to work on the assumption that political parties are an essentially Bad Thing, and it feels like that's started to leak into the rest of the English-speaking world, but to the extent that position has any real merit, it's as a response to America's weird political system rather than a problem with parties as such.

 

[Dachs]

the article in the OP keeps referring to random selection for jury duty, which is something vaguely alien to me because of the existence of voir dire in America (yes, I know Commonwealth voir dire is different, don't @ me)

random selection for participation in a citizens' legislature feels like it could also be an undue imposition on the chosen individuals' time and welfare

 

[Lexicus]

Sounds like something Mussolini would come up with tbh.

Drawing lots by socio-economic group has a flavor of the ancient Romans about it, don't you think?

 

[Dachs]

Drawing lots by socio-economic group has a flavor of the ancient Romans about it, don't you think?

They sure did do that thing.

Although at least some of their references to dividing things up by sors probably, pace Goffart, refers to giving each person involved their own "lot" rather than to "drawing lots" in the sense of randomness.