[EM] sortition/random legislature Was: Re: language/framingquibble

[Aaron Armitage]

You make a lot of good points. I can actually see quite a few useful
functions for the kind of temporary issue-specific panels you describe.
For example, they could examine line-items in the budget, and have the
option to approve it, veto it, or send it back with the demand that it be
increased or decreased. If it's sent back it may be necessary for the
legislature to leave it as it was despite the panel's demand, because, for
example, it may demand an increase in funding for a program that actually
deserves more funding, but the state is required to keep a balanced budget
and tax revenues are down. (On the other hand, all the vetos other panels
are doing should free up some extra money.) Redistricting is an obvious
function that could be given to a panel.

I would still argue that the central body that sets the agenda (and votes
on final passage of the overall package produced by the citizen panels)
should be elected. It's not that I think citizens should have to appeal to
powerful legislators, they should be deciding who those people will be.


--- On Thu, 9/11/08, Terry Bouricius <terryb at burlingtontelecom.net> wrote:

> From: Terry Bouricius <terryb at burlingtontelecom.net>
> Subject: Re: [EM] sortition/random legislature Was: Re: language/framingquibble
> To: "Raph Frank" <raphfrk at gmail.com>, eutychus_slept at yahoo.com
> Cc: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 10:07 AM
> I am interested in Aaron's comment on a risk of
> sortition along these 
> lines...
> "Managing your own affairs is for adults; having your
> desires catered to 
> without effort on your part is for spoiled children."
> I am sympathetic to this argument. I favor a society in
> which as many 
> people as possible are engaged in thinking, debating,
> advocating about the 
> way their society will function, rather than passively
> receiving 
> direction. I am not convinced either candidate or
> party-based elections, 
> in which voters every year or so place a mark on a ballot
> really achieve 
> this. However, I can also imagine sortition being done is a
> very bad 
> way -- where an anonymous distant sortition authority
> simply informs the 
> people of decisions --- like "the Provider" on
> the old Star Trek TV show.
> 
> Instead, I would imagine that sortition-formed bodies
> should be more akin 
> to sampled citizen assemblies, and be common-place,
> short-term and narrow 
> focus, such that every person would serve on numerous
> sortition bodies 
> over a lifetime. Rather than appealing to powerful elected
> officials for 
> policy change, citizens would need to spread their ideas
> through the 
> general public, not knowing who might be temporarily
> "in power" on their 
> particular issue of concern next year. Thus public debate,
> letters to the 
> editor and Blog commentaries, etc. become more significant
> under this form 
> of sortition.
> 
> Not unlike jury duty, I would think by default everybody
> would be subject 
> to selection (maybe not even limited to those over 18).
> However, those who 
> feel they are unsuitable should probably be able to either
> be excused, or 
> select a friend or family member to go in their place. The
> compensation 
> would need to be adequate, but not huge to remove money as
> a consideration 
> for most people. I don't favor an opt-IN approach
> (where people need to 
> volunteer to get into the lottery), because I know of many
> people who 
> would be ideal legislators, but who don't have the
> ego-mania to consider 
> themselves in that light.
> 
> I also share Aaron's concern about a bureaucracy
> controlling the agenda 
> and flow of information to the sortition bodies. Perhaps
> groups or 
> individuals could petition to put items or proposals before
> sortition 
> bodies, so the bureaucracy does not have a monopoly. The
> higher the level 
> (national vs. municipal), the more signatures needed to
> convene a 
> sortition body on a particular matter or place an item on
> their agenda.
> 
> Terry Bouricius
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Raph Frank" <raphfrk at gmail.com>
> To: <eutychus_slept at yahoo.com>
> Cc: <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [EM] sortition/random legislature Was: Re: 
> language/framingquibble
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Aaron Armitage
> <eutychus_slept at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I don't think I expressed my point clearly enough:
> I consider that 
> > making
> > the public the active agents in their own governance
> is a very major
> > benefit of popular government. THE benefit, in fact.
> 
> However, most of the power rests with the legislators.  We
> already
> delegate the power to people who will then make decisions
> for us.
> 
> What about if only voters got to be selected.  You have to
> go to the
> polling station and 'vote' in order to be eligible
> for selection.
> 
> > Increasing the
> > percentage of majority policy preferences enacted, in
> such a way as to
> > make the people passive consumers of policy rather
> than at least
> > potentially the producers forfeits the reason for
> having popular
> > government. Managing your own affairs is for adults;
> having your desires
> > catered to without effort on your part is for spoiled
> children.
> 
> Is the issue here is that if the legislature is selected at
> random,
> there is no requirement for the voters to become informed
> about the
> issues?
> 
> In the unlikely event that some gets picked, they then can
> actually
> bother to get informed.
> 
> A two House solution seems to help with that though, you
> still need to
> know what is happening in order to pick the elected house.
> 
> >
> > I'm not especially afraid that legislators chosen
> by sortition would be
> > corrupt, although if they can be reelected as you
> suggest they would
> > become corrupt at close to the same rate that
> politicians do now, and 
> > for
> > the same reasons. I do think that in practice the
> agenda would be set by
> > the permanent staffers and facilitators, and depending
> on who they are 
> > and
> > how effective they are at framing the issues the
> result may end up not
> > being very democratic at all.
> 
> I am not sure I agree.  The vote of confidence would cover
> just one
> person.  Since a challenger can't control who will
> replace the
> legislator, there is less incentive to spend lots of money.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see
> http://electorama.com/em for list info