[EM] sortition/random legislature Was: Re: language/framing quibble

[Aaron Armitage]

c--- On Thu, 9/11/08, Raph Frank <raphfrk at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Raph Frank <raphfrk at gmail.com>
> Subject: [EM] sortition/random legislature Was: Re: language/framing quibble
> To: "Election Methods Mailing List" <election-methods at electorama.com>
> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 7:00 AM
> Sorry, pressed reply instead of reply to all
> 

I did the same thing twice, which is why you see three different copies of
my e-mail. I didn't save them, so I had to write them over, which is why
the version you replied to differs from the version that got sent to the
list.

> On 9/11/08, Aaron Armitage <eutychus_slept at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>  > It doesn't follow from the fact we choose
> representatives for ourselves
>  >  that we would lose nothing by being stripped of the
> means of political
>  >  action. We would lose our citizenship, because
> citizenship means precisely
>  >  having a share of the right to rule. Registering for
> a lottery doesn't
>  >  count.
> 
> 
> So, any form of randomness is not acceptable?  

I suppose in the case of an intractable tie some resort to randomness in
unavoidable.

My point is that any alternative to popular sovereignty is unacceptable.


What about
> one of the
>  the proposed random ballot rules, where if there is
> consensus, a
>  specific candidate wins.  However, if that doesn't
> work, the winner is
>  random.
> 

I'm not sure I understand. If everyone votes for the same person, any
random ballot will be a vote for him. What point is there in having a
special consensus rule when that the usual rule will always give the same
result as the special one?

As far as I'm aware, the only community that uses random ballot elections
are the Amish, who use it for choosing bishops. The whole point is prevent
themselves from being actors in governing themselves, because they
consider that God's role.

> 
>  > That isn't very reassuring. Who would do the
> informing? The permanent
>  >  staff?
> 
> 
> I meant that there is little point in thinking about issues
> before
>  being elected.
> 

If this is so there would no longer be a public opinion, which would mean
that the assembly could not accurately reflect public opinion.

 
>  However, I do agree that it is a potential issue.  Often
> good
>  government depends not just on doing the right thing, but
> also
>  convincing the public that you are doing the right thing. 
> A random
>  legislature would not have to do any convincing.
>

Why would it need to?
 
> 
>  > If someone succeeds in becoming a career legislator,
> quite a few private
>  >  interests will have an incentive to buy him. A
> legislator in that position
>  >  may not need much for campaigning, but there are
> plenty of other things he
>  >  can do with their money instead.
> 
> 
> However, balance of power would be with the voters.  The
> degree to
>  which politicians can act with impunity to public opinion
> is
>  determined by how hard they are to vote out.
> 
>  All they have to do is lose one vote of confidence and
> then they will
>  (almost) never be reelected.
> 
>  In any case, I don't see how the fact that the
> politicians can be
>  corrupted is a disadvantage of the system, seeing as it
> can't be any
>  worse than a normal method.

I would imagine a legislator who chose to make a career of it would be in
office almost permanently once he passed his first re-election. You can't
beat something with nothing. Under sortition, party politics becomes
meaningless, so a legislator running for re-election would have no
opposition party. At most there would be a local ad hoc opposition. Even
with a national party on the other side incumbents have a 90% re-election
rate; a major part of that is the fact that a candidate has to be a good
fit for the district to get elected in the first place, and he's likely to
remain a good fit. But after the first re-election a legislator chosen by
sortition is probably also a good fit, and after the first test I would
expect re-election rates to be even higher.

My point here is that sortition has little or no advantage over elections
in terms of preventing corruption. I'm not saying it actually has a
disadvantage, just no advantage.