I think this is definitely on-topic. This is also a good challenge on
how to improve the current political systems. The identified problem
is real and better approaches could be found.
It is natural that people have many kind of motivation to climb up
the ladders of the political system. Some may aim at improving the
society for the benefit of all. Some may do it for the money or the
fame or just to be better than others or to prove to others that they
are worth something. There are also many combinations of different
motivations (this is not black and white).
The representatives should be representative. Pure lottery may be in
many aspects better than current commonly used methods. On the other
hand pure lottery may not be ideal in the sense that we may want the
representatives to be wise and competent rather than just random
people with maybe no interest and no special skills for the job.
(Legislative work could be demanding. Or it could be simply common
sense evaluation of proposals made by civil servants.)
The current political systems do to some extent produce clever and
competent representatives since climbing the ladders up (maybe
fighting one's way up) does require some type of talent. Maybe also
some ruthlessness etc. We can assume that some of the best potential
representatives will not feel comfortable in this environment and
will never climb high.
So, how can we improve the quality of the representatives then.
1) If one starts form sortition, then one could try to introduce
components that aim at electing better representatives (if basic
lottery is not considered good enough). One could use weighted
lottery where voters are first allowed to vote for any citizens
(=give weight to) and only then one would do the lottery. Or one
could allow each person to name any other citizen in their ballot and
then there would be a lottery among the ballots. Some of the elected
persons would refuse => we could get more motivated representatives
by electing someone else instead.
2) If one starts from the traditional democratic systems, then one
could try to increase the level of understanding of the personality
of each representative (nowadays they typically are far away and
always just smile when in TV). Maybe the fellow representatives and
other people that work close to them could evaluate them. This should
be done in a balanced way, avoiding giving bad scores to competing
political groupings. Maybe it would be enough to see the relative
merits when compared to other representatives of the same party. This
approach should maybe cover also the lower layers of the ladders to
help lifting the best people up. Also encouragement votes to regular
citizens could be used (maybe all citizens are candidates, maybe one
could have an additional encouragement vote that has no weight in the
actual election except its encouragement value).
3) There have been also many proxy style proposals where regular
people give their support on the next layer above them etc. This is a
bottom-up approach that also aims at keeping the contacts between
people of adjacent layers strong and elections based on really
knowing the qualities of the elected people (instead of basing one's
voting decisions on smiling faces in the TV and carefully formulated
positive and negative campaigning (often made by professionals
instead of the candidates themselves)).
4) Direct democracy allows people to make decisions themselves.
Modern technologies give more possibilities to use this approach too.
One could use also some intermediate approach and elect some very
large number of representatives (using lottery, proxies, local
elections,...). This would keep the ladders low (easy to climb and
not so tempting to people with "wrong motivations"). Of course some
executive level (government etc.) would be needed also in this case.
(Some proxy style proposals also allow anyone to vote personally when
they want.)
The current political systems could certainly be improved to elect
better representatives. There are many ways to approach this goal.
Better keep working and we may see also results some day (not just a
reform but also better representatives and better decisions).
Juho
On Sep 10, 2008, at 0:00 , Terry Bouricius wrote:
Although it may be off-topic for a VOTING method list, I have long
advocated a greater use of sortition (the selection by lot) to select
legislators (perhaps one chamber of a bicameral legislature?) Having
served ten years as a state legislator in Vermont, USA, I can
assure you
all that legislators are not more qualified, nor wiser, as Burke
hoped,
but rather simply less-representative and more egotistical, than
average
people. The experience and excellent work of the Citizen Assembly
established by the provincial parliament in British Columbia a few
years
ago is compelling evidence that elections may not be the key to
genuinely
representative democracy.
Terry Bouricius
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Gohlke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Whoops!
It was your entire post of Mon Sep 8 03:44:51 PDT 2008
I didn't cite it because I was responding to the entire post, which
follows:
(clip)
One option is to select the legislature at random. Stratified random
sampling would yield a highly representative legislature. The
population would be split into N groups, such that each group is
reasonably homogeneous and then 1 person picked from each group. This
also reduces the benefit from corrupting the random process. Also,
corrupting the stratification just increases the random variance, it
doesn't actually change the expect result. Corrupting both means that
you get to pick the legislature.
This has the advantage that it eliminates the point in campaigning.
Every 5 years, a group of people get a mail in the post informing them
that they have been selected for 'legislature duty' .. though unlike
Juries they would presumably be paid.
The disadvantage (or advantage depending on your viewpoint) is that it
leads to a legislature made up of average people.
I have suggested that a way around it is to have a multi-stage
process.
The people picked at random are asked to select the 'person they
know
who they would most respect to hold office' and that generates a
second
group. The rule would require that the person picked is somehow
connected to them, say friends or family members. After a few stages,
say 10, the final group becomes the legislature.
This should result in a reasonably competent legislature (assuming
each
person picks someone more competent than themselves) and the rule that
you must pick a friend/family members for each link means that
campaigning is pointless.
This resulting legislature would then appoint the PM (or nominate 2
candidates for President) and approve any cabinet posts.
The big disadvantage is that it is unlikely that a person would be
re-elected. This could lead to short term thinking. OTOH, each
legislator would know that he will have to live in the country
after his
term ends, so he won't want to mess up to badly.
(clip)
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
