[EM] Fair and Democratic versus Majority Rules

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Bob Richard wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 4:58 PM, fsimmons at pcc.edu wrote:
>> When majority rules, a 51 percent majority can have their way in 
>> election after election. But what other
>> possible standard is there for democracy and fairness besides 
>> "majority rule?"
> 
> For seats in legislative bodies, proportional representation.
> 
>> One answer is that every sector of the population ought to have a 
>> chance at being in charge, and that
>> chance should be in rough proportion to the size of the sector of the 
>> population.
> 
> What does "being in charge" mean? If it means "making the rules", see my 
> response above. If it means "implementing/administering/enforcing the 
> rules", then I think any form of lottery would lead to chaos and 
> possibly rebellion during the occasional terms in office of officials 
> representing small minorities. Sortition is very feasible for specific 
> kinds of legislative assemblies, specifically those whose purpose is to 
> propose measures to be voted on in referenda. I don't think it can work 
> for deciding who gets to run the executive branch.

Do you think sortition could work for a representative legislature? Say 
that you fill the democratic/representative chamber by lot, and say that 
it's relatively large - 400 or so - that sampling artifacts are rare. If 
it vacillates, use rules closer to consensus, either methods like 
Forest's or simply raising the majority needed from 50%+1 to 60% or so.

If it does, would it work for a parliament? In such a system, the 
sortition-based legislature would select the government.

I agree that using sortition to pick the executive itself wouldn't work, 
because the executive is much too small and so the luck of the draw 
would have an inordinately large effect.