Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Political Philosophy and Law
>
Sortition
date
newest »
newest »
Looking for enthusiastic partners to make "All of Us" --a feature film that entertains, educates and provokes. About what and how the Next Step for Democracy will evolve. I have written four screenplays based on the theme of what a legislature would be like if it were chosen by sortition.
See my entry at Stage 32 for more info: https://www.stage32.com/profile/75373...
Thinking about this idea a little bit this evening. I hope no one minds if I add a comment to this thread.The 'fairness' of mathematical randomness simply seems to me, to be a theoretical, abstract concept that the social zeitgeist would never accept. Ours is a "protestant-work-ethic" based society. 'Merit' counts in western culture; 'competition' is ingrained and fundamental.
There's slim chance that successful people would ever want to be led by anyone who is not similarly successful. If you take a bum off the street who maybe has a high school diploma but has been in jail, drug habit, deserted multiple families ... shown total incompetence ... is 'fairness' a good enough argument to convince anyone to follow in his capacity?
Like it or not, (I feel) that's just not how society will ever work. Intrinsically, we want leaders who are better than us; its just human nature, isn't it?
A paltry set of observations perhaps. Gloomy mood tonight I admit.
Feliks wrote: "Thinking about this idea a little bit this evening. I hope no one minds if I add a comment to this thread.The 'fairness' of mathematical randomness simply seems to me, to be a theoretical, abstra..."
Feliks wrote: "Thinking about this idea a little bit this evening. I hope no one minds if I add a comment to this thread.
The 'fairness' of mathematical randomness simply seems to me, to be a theoretical, abstra..."
Hi, Feliks, Your comments are welcome. Sure, many people will be inclined to think as you do. But consider the jury system. It is one of the most trusted mechanisms of our system.
I would propose that potential Citizen Jurists would be required to pass a simple civics test -- no more difficult than the test for driver's license ... maybe even the Naturalization Test required for citizenship (not a difficult thing to master).
The use of sortition is expanding worldwide. The recent examples of Irish citizens, chosen by sortition, studying and deliberating about changes in their constitution ... followed by a nationwide referendum on their recommendations ... resulted in approval of two major milestones in (such a Catholic country): same sex marriage and abortion rights.
That happened because regular citizens, chosen randomly, were given the time and resources to soberly deliberate. Like a jury.
I applaud the enthusiasm you have for the ideas you espouse. Its a fine thing to see. I'm often inclined to the negative and cynical view, I must admit. Pessimism my hobgoblin. But I'm secretly a fan of idealists like yourself!But let me ask you. Do you see no difference between the jury system and the electoral system? There's quite a marked difference to my eyes.
Now, certainly, many noble ideas are worth doing (as Samuel Johnson affirmed)...but are they practical to attempt? Bearing in mind human nature? I admit I'm jaundiced and dispirited by recent United States political history.
It seems to me we're in the worst tailspin we could possibly be experiencing. How can energetic democratic ideals be re-vivified in this currently sallow, deflated landscape, when so many Americans seem enraptured by --and contented with --a state of near fascism?
Walking around my city this evening,--on many nights just like tonight --my impression is that EVERYONE seems locked in a mode of 'convenience surfing'. Effort is anathema. No one wants to take even one moment to think something out on their own, without referring to the internet to 'inform them'. And advise them. People have lost all cognizance of basic concepts. An idea like 'duty' or 'citizenship' is laughable to them. Its a disastrous landscape for introducing new ideas.
The goal today is to expend no energy. I'm giving you my opinion here but I warrant you'd agree with me. Grown adults will throw an infantile tantrum if you intrude on their screen-surfing time. There is a massive dependency on screen-gazing, and any notion which interferes with this is (I feel) likely to be doomed. Concepts like 'other citizens' or 'one's neighbors' just don't exist anymore.
Sigh...
David wrote: "But consider the jury system. It is one of the most trusted mechanisms of our system..."Sortition is something I think is worth exploring more. It can give democratic validity to difficult political questions.
Not sure I would have picked the jury system as an example though. In the US, Britain and Australia (where I hail from) the jury system is so compromised by the lawyers rights to exclude citizens from sitting on the jury if they think the jurist might be "prejudicial' i.e. might actually be awake to the structural inequalities of the system, that it literally excludes those with the most immediate knowledge of the context social context for the offending behaviour. So you end up with majority white juries deciding cases where a white police officer kills a black youth. Or majority male jury deciding on rape cases bought by women etc, etc.
Lawyers so distort the jury system by removing anyone they think will be sympathetic to the victim that it's not a good analogy for sortition as a process where the intent is to 'sort in', not to 'sort out'.
Another New Yorker article about how sortition can and should be incorporated in what Yale professor Landemore calls 'open democracy'.https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-fu...
I just noticed that I received an unsolicited five star review on Amazon for my book *Why Elections are the Problem and How to Make Democracy Real*:A Great Primer for Anyone New to the Idea of Sortion July 27, 2020
As a long time believer in sortition (selection by lot) as an answer to our beleaguered political system, I read this book with great interest. It's a quick and easy read. It hits all of the main points needed for those who have recently stumbled upon the idea of sortition to understand it. If you're sick and tired of Republican Vs. Democrat, and wondering how our democracy can possibly survive, please read this book.
About the sortitioned Civic Assembly recently enacted in France:Sortition is making inroads in the media – although perhaps not in the way we’d hope. A popular French TV series depicts a politician advocating sortition who turns out to be a fascist authoritarian.
/////
I wish someone would look at the four scripts I have written, based on the premise of a sortitioned legislature. See them at: https://www.amazon.com/David-Grant/e/...
The previous comment comes from a summary of the recent all-day conference about sortition at Bard College:https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inb...
The conference at Bard entitled ‘Revitalizing Democracy: Sortition, Citizen Power, and Spaces of Freedom’ was videotaped and will soon be available here:https://hac.bard.edu/event/index.php?...
I have some pure speculation to air, and feel it might go best in this thread.Question: is it possible that in democratic systems where elected representatives have strict, short term-limits --that this creates an unintended apathy in citizens?
American office-term-limits were designed to combat many political evils the Founders observed in other systems. They safeguard against entrenched leaders who rule badly and also become very difficult to dislodge from office.
But is it a 'spin-off effect' in a system of constantly shifting & rotating leaders that the population is never motivated enough to strike down a poor leader?
If any humble fellow-American can get a seat in our Congress for a while, and sit there either as a 'do-nothing' or as a 'party lackey', --merely rubber-stamping bad policies --and then giving up his seat to another average-joe just like him; doesn't this take away a lot of the energy a people might generate to force true change?
Is it possible our leaders come-and-go too quickly for us to get deeply outraged? After all, why march on the Capitol with pitchforks and torches if a political stooge is already on his way out the door?
Does this result in a form of national stagnation rather than national growth? Just musing aloud here.
p.s. on the other hand: consider constitutional monarchies. Great Britain (in my opinion) is a land where a calming influence is exerted by their royal family, who are largely ceremonial and without actual power. British subjects love their Queen or King; they're never motivated to revolt against them in modern times. Perish the thought! At the same time, they enjoy the reassurance that their parliamentary representatives are short-term and bound to regular elections.
Hi, Feliks.While I completely agree that the power of incumbency is a problem in the U.S., I think it is better addressed by campaign finance reform and the power of recall than by term limits. I think it is important that the electorate should be able to get the representation they want. That's not true today because of things like gerrymandering, single-member plurality voting, the absence of proportional representation, bad campaign finance decisions, etc., etc. But adding term limits seems to me to be just one more way in which voters can be prevented from getting precisely the representation they want.
Hallo WalterThinking over what you've said. I suppose my question is more about voters knowing what they want, or knowing what they might want ...understanding what it is possible to want, understanding what is possible to change (if they apply themselves). Said another way: are they developing any preferences in the first place, for how they wish to be led and represented? Does our electoral process generate its own 'drag' and 'inertia' in its very intention to be as fair as possible?
My woolgathering is maybe not very well-formed in this case. I guess I'm just asking whether a people lose motivation to reform anything which is constantly 'rearranging itself' anyway.
I guess there are all kinds of voters. Some know very little. But, in my view, all voters and votes should be treated equally anyhow.
A demographically representative legislature 'automatically' provides direct and accurate feedback from the electorate. Which, I think, responds to the issues raised by Walter and Feliks.Regarding message 66: I suppose you are aware that the U.S. election fails miserably to meet international standards of fairness and accuracy.
What constitutes a "demographically representative legislature" is very controversial. Much of my book is about that.I entirely agree that U.S. systems across the board generally fail miserably, by pretty much every standard.
I do not believe the rapidness of elections occur necessarily in the presidential elections of the U.S.; however, the HOR, being only in office two years, does seems to promote this stagnation of change which I will not address here. As far as the presidency is concerned, I would like to arise the possibility of the seeming ‘stagnation’ derives from our politicians being extremists. Often times I claim to fellow classmates that the ‘middle has been silenced.’ What I mean is, the extremist two party system has caused any form of acknowledging a possible consensus understanding on one topic, to be a weakness. The middle does not have a voice. You will be tied to a political party immediately if you claim something. So the reason I run down that rabbit hole is to claim the party elected is too busy trying to reform what the party prior to them put into place (back to what it was), that it creates one step forward one step back consistently. Would longer terms help? I think only through trial and error would it be possible for one to claim (confidently) it so.
Just brainstorming / thinking aloud:What really is the power of sortition in elected offices if there is not similar sortition in the private sector? Would not "randomly elected officials" still be suborned by the power of business once in office, much as was, any 'interim government' such as (for example) Kerensky's? That was a 'fire sale' type government, alternatively there are 'pay to play' governments.
And if you would admit that some form of sortition is then needed to transform the face of big business, well --what is this, except a socialist solution?
It's rather like a children's game of musical-chairs. No matter the arrangement of chairs, each time the music ends, the number of chairs determines who gets to sit down. It's not the action of sitting which is in doubt: the question is, who gets to enjoy the seat? No matter the players, the game remains static.
In Nazi Germany, Bolshevik Russia, and revolutionary France, chairs were so arranged that the people themselves practically became an arm of the government. People of nations too large to police, were enlisted to police themselves. There was an evil genius in this (even if there was arguably 'idealistic genius' in subjugating/removing all private landowners and private captains of business).
But in any event, 'sortition' (seems to me) a half-measure. Unless every sector of society agrees to it, what do you wind up left with on your hands? You can't keep control on a population by either extreme: randomness, or via 'local party leaders'.
What I worry instead is that the media technology we are seeing today, will someday serve a 'local party leader' function. [How else can centralized authority check a populace and still remain small?]
Feliks wrote: "Just brainstorming / thinking aloud:What really is the power of sortition in elected offices if there is not similar sortition in the private sector? Would not "randomly elected officials" still ..."
Thank you, Feliks, for 'just brainstorming / thinking aloud'.
I don't see why you say that big business needs a mirroring sortition. I start from the premise that the existing three pronged governmental system -- legislative, executive and judiciary -- would remain as they are. Except that the representatives for the legislature would be chosen sortitionally ... which would create a descriptively accurate reflection of the entire population.
Big business on the other hand consists only of the 'executive'. I suppose you could say the shareholders mirror the legislature. And, what?, governmental regulatory agencies the equivalent to big business as judiciary?
I suppose big business could decide to follow the Mondragon model in Spain. Would you say that is a socialist model? That's (according to the Wikipedia entry) the largest cooperative in the world but not a word of 'socialist'.
So, I'm left with no reply to your 'thinking out loud'. It does not seem to me to be to the point.
Best wishes.
Hallo DavidFirst let me say I hope you do not take my remarks towards sortition as undercutting you or your championing of the concept. I realize you are deeply entwined with the premise. But if I criticize it, this is surely not criticizing you nor your passion for the idea. I'd like to see any idea implemented if we can be assured it is a positive change.
To answer your first puzzlement: I wonder whether sortition can only work in government if it is also instituted in business; because: business is always in bed with government. The relationship goes back at least as far as Rome's equestrian class. Political leaders protected landowners in earlier times, the same way that leaders today protect international conglomerates.
I'm glad your sortition design would preserve the tripartite separation of US powers but --with regard to Congress --I ask, what is the result of better mirroring US population demographics if you don't disrupt the traditional 'pork-barrel' traits which always taint legislative bodies?
Yes, I am a fan of the Mondragon example in Catalonia. I think it has merit; but since it is unlikely to be adopted here in the USA I return to my root question which is: how would sortition perform better than what we have now, if the chief failing of Congress remains outside of the new design?
I think what I'm pondering is on topic to the thread and not being unfairly critical. I'm simply 'testing' the proposition. How does sortition reduce excessive capitalist influence on Congress?
If it can, I will be genuinely and honestly impressed.
Ah, wait a moment --I think I see now what you may be driving at and if so, I apologize for my being slow on the uptake.Are you saying that if Congress better reflects US demographics, then the link between private sector interests will immediately be broken? Because the new representatives will have no previous affiliation with --nor any natural, self-interested affinity toward the nation's business elite? Is that the idea?
It has a grain of sense to it. I suppose I'm still worried that the new leaders would be 'on the market' and 'for sale' just as they always are; but sortition would tilt the tradition somewhat. Corporate power would have to buy fresh influence with every election. I see.
Mod
Presumably by random selection of candidates.But wouldn't there need to be some fairly advanced statistical model not simply to mirror American demographics accurately (when choosing candidates) but to mirror the population fairly?
The country's vast geography is inherently unfair. The landmass does not distribute citizens equally. So wouldn't any randomness model always be deemed unfair to some group or class or ethnicity?
Some densely-populated US coastal cities have have more citizens and more ethnic groups and more economic classes than the entire rural midwest put together.
It's like the scene in that famous treasure hunt movie where shares are being counted up for each thief, and each one insists on being counted out 2,3,or 4 shares based on overlapping criteria. "I was here first" vs "I've been here the longest", vs "I was here first and I've been here the longest and I'm also the oldest" etc
If sortition selects from a ‘pool of candidates’ chosen at random, how would a populace arrive at those group of candidates without defeating the purpose of sortition? The common idea is to go off of educational experience or testing to qualify; however, then one would encounter the potential problem of discrimination of the the minority in educational systems. So, I guess my question is, how to you keep the integrity of meritocracy while achieving the desired effect of sortition?
Why should the electorate not be able to get the representatives they want, rather than a randomly selected group? I think the idea of sortition comes from the same sort of "identity" theory of democracy that produces bodies like Soviets or dumas, in which one person must come from labor, one from agriculture, etc. In my view it's bad enough that a principle of that type requires so much geographic power in the U.S. (Term limits is related to this instinct: it also replaces the idea of democracy with hopes for certain outcomes.)At any rate, sortition of any kind constitutes a constraint, rather than an enhancement of democracy, which, at its essence requires the people (or at least a majority of them) to get what they want.
H'mm! Interesting. Electoral matters in this country usually go over-my-head --I don't mind admitting it. I don't know what to support or decry in this realm. But one thing about our system has long seemed preposterous: the principle which allows barren wastelands like Nevada or Wyoming to influence national decision-making alongside coastal states. It might have been a good intention once when the country was still agrarian. But in the modern world, why does an empty desert need 'representation'? If there's a few "cities" out there why not just aggregate their views with the nearest populated state? I'm not in favor of removing anyone's rights; just wondering if this weird geographical skew can be reduced. After all, how reasonable are lone residents in a far-flung wilderness ever going to be? Come hell or high-water, they're always going to vote for some old-world backwoods way of thinking which suits their living situation. Rather than consider what's best for all."Sortition" seems a variation on the most frustrating aspects of our mandate towards fair-play. A variation which leans in the other extreme. Under sortition, western states might have their representation reduced too drastically. I guess I don't want that either.
Mod
These concessions to small states were anathema to James Madison and other so-called nationalists (Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, et al.) at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. However, the small-state faction at the Convention was strong, and Madison and his colleagues finally decided they had to compromise on such issues after several weeks of argument about them. We still live with the consequences of such compromises.
Much to give one pause. It's fine stuff. I'm not one to blithely or rashly 'undo' agreements which took years of coordinated efforts by men much more learned than myself.But what of the agreement which provided for Washington D.C.'s quasi-state status? What of the birth of the state of West Virginia? I was startled to learn from Eric Foner's book, just how recent the Virginia split was. I wonder if there will ever be such leeway again. [This is just an idle musing Alan, so don't let it distract you from your writings today.]
Mod
The D.C. situation was contemplated in the original Constitution and was the result of a compromise by all concerned (states were actually vying for the chance to donate land for such a federal enclave in their vicinity). The location was actually decided over dinner between Hamilton and Jefferson before they became mortal political enemies. There were several components to this compromise, the details of which I don't recall off the top of my head.
West Virginia split off from Virginia when Virginia purported to secede from the Union during the Civil War. Again, I don't recall the details off the top of my head, but Virginia may have been required to recognize the new state as a condition of its restoration to the Union after the North won the Civil War.
Alan wrote: "The problem with the undue political power of small states due to equal state suffrage in the U.S. Senate is that such inequality is rooted in the U.S. Constitution. Article V of the Constitution g..."Walter wrote: "Right on!"
I also am too lazy to check for certain, but I believe New York was one of the "small states" at the Convention. While Hamilton was a delegate, his enemies the Livingstons controlled the vote of New York and required the compromise. (Even with the compromise re the Senate, it was still a close thing as to whether New York would ratify.) jim vice
David wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Just brainstorming / thinking aloud:What really is the power of sortition in elected offices if there is not similar sortition in the private sector? Would not "randomly elected of..."
I appreciate your engagement with this topic.
Am I correct to understand that your concern is the control that business -- especially large corporations -- have over Congress?
If so, then yes, of course I am also concerned with that.
Elections are largely won or lost based on how much money can be raised (from the smallest to the largest donors).
Is it not obvious that sortition would eliminate that? And then the representatives would face the same kind of challenges from all interest groups as the elected ones do now.
++++++++
I must admit that my views are in flux about using sortition to merely replace legislators. I recommend the papers of Terrill Bourcious about 'mini-publics', available in academia.edu.
Feliks wrote: "Hallo DavidFirst let me say I hope you do not take my remarks towards sortition as undercutting you or your championing of the concept. I realize you are deeply entwined with the premise. But if ..."
Corect, Feliks. I don't think most people are corrupt. I do think that power corrupts. Thus I think that 'everyday people' would be less prone to taking bribes, for instance. In any case, they would be policed by an Ethics Committee -- one which should NOT be composed, as the current one is, by Congressional members, but should be an independent body.
Feliks wrote: "Ah, wait a moment --I think I see now what you may be driving at and if so, I apologize for my being slow on the uptake.Are you saying that if Congress better reflects US demographics, then the l..."
Feliks wrote: "Ah, wait a moment --I think I see now what you may be driving at and if so, I apologize for my being slow on the uptake.
Are you saying that if Congress better reflects US demographics, then the l..."
Feliks wrote: "Ah, wait a moment --I think I see now what you may be driving at and if so, I apologize for my being slow on the uptake.
Are you saying that if Congress better reflects US demographics, then the l..."
[I'm having trouble replying to ALAN's point, not Feliks. I hit the 'reply' just above Alan's comment].
Alan, of course the mob that stormed the Capitol is of great concern. Madison thought that elections would deliver an aristocracy to rule. We got an oligarchy, close enough.
Much research has shown that a heterogeneous group makes better decisions than a homogenous one.
An important point to keep in mind, regards fears about extreme partisanship, is that elections stoke partisanship. And remember, too, that I am not talking about opinion polls ... but rather well-sourced deliberative citizen juries.
Yes, there would be a few of the types who stormed the Capitol. But they would be very few and most of them would learn to listen and learn.
Alan wrote: "What happens when sortition results in people like those who stormed the capitol building yesterday becoming legislators—ignorant people, easily swayed by charlatans, with zero critical thinking sk..."The mathematically rigorous 'Law of Large Numbers' assures that a random selection of the population would come extremely close of being a descriptive representation of the entire population.
Yes, that would mean that the larger urban areas would have representatives equal to their 'weight'.
But that is simply the equivalent of 'one person, one vote'. Not particular to sortition but to what democracy is supposed to be.
The Electoral College purportedly tries to balance ... but totally destroys 'one person, one vote'. No other democratic republic does that.
Hello DavidIt's certainly not a demerit to a new idea if it needs a little trial-and-error, a little tinkering or tweaking. Many great ideas start out similarly.
I did not intend to steer your discussion away from a more general appreciation (of the potential of sortition) into tiny niggling detail.
But yes: corporate influence over the legislative branch does loom large in my mind. It might seem obvious that sortition immediately defeats corruption of elected representatives; but I'm interested in the mechanics of how exactly.
Let's agree for the sake of argument that corporations always want to hold say over our Congress. The existing process allows them plenty of time to 'send out feelers' and 'make entreaties' to candidates. They lay their groundwork, and make their behind-the-scenes deals. This is our system.
Would a random selection of candidates truly thwart this? If I'm minimum-wage worker, 'Joe Q. Citizen' in this land-of-opportunity of ours, and I am randomly offered a choice to sit in Congress --wouldn't I be keen on making some money from the opportunity? Wouldn't corporate powers reach out to me with a friendly 'hello'?
The only difference in the two circumstances, (actual vs theoretical) being that in the 'theoretical', the Big Six "wait until I am in my seat". [In our existing system, I'm sure we all understand the reality: candidates are groomed for collusion as soon as they start their public careers.]
I suspect that under 'sortition', average-American-citizens might view the whole thing as a cakewalk. A chance to make some profit.
The above-woolgathering omits consideration of whether John Q. Citizen can even take time off from his career or day-job, (for two years? four years?) similar to jury-duty.
Back to you. Again, no criticism for the underlying 'sortition; concept is implied here. Other 'new ideas' have been implemented successfully, this one could also be feasible. I admit that outright in the interest of 'sussing it out'.
David, Feliks, Alan doesn't the original sortition system apply to very short terms? A year maximum, often less. Sometimes a month.Of course the problem becomes in a far more complicated society that the elected have less time to learn the nuts and bolts of negotiation and legislative law.
Certainly cuts down the chance for corruption though. If you can't predict who is going to be elected.
Of course they also had ostracism. A citizen vote on a ten year banishment from the land.
Good point there about term length. And about 'experience', yes: in all the east-coast cities I've resided in, I've seen my neighbors vote automatically for the veteran legislator, the incumbent ...simply for the sheer fact that he is able to get things done. He is deep in the machine; other lawmakers 'owe him favors', he has 'played ball' and is 'one of the boys'.
Corruption: I still don't see how sortition seriously hinders lobbyists. If I am a corporate lobbyist what difference does it make to me, whether I approach a representative while he's running for office; or just after he is elected? It changes my timing only.
Meanwhile, if I am Joe Citizen --and find myself 'just passing through Congress for two years' --what have I got to lose by selling my vote? I have no reputation, no political career, no reason to care. I'd have nothing which could be 'ruined' by backroom finagling. Instead, I'd probably be eager to dip my fingers in the pork-barrel.
Mod
Of course the problem becomes in a far more complicated society t..."
Gentlemen, I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion for now. I'm not well read on sortition, and I don't have time to read up on it now. I'm extremely busy preparing a second edition of my book on the U.S. Electoral College (including a new chapter on what the 2020 election teaches us about the Electoral College) as well as a philosophical trilogy on free will, ethics, and political philosophy. When I get to the last of these books, I will study David's and others' writings on sortition (among many other perspectives on political philosophy). But that will be some years from now.
Understand Alan. Hope the work goes well.
David wrote: "Alan wrote: "What happens when sortition results in people like those who stormed the capitol building yesterday becoming legislators—ignorant people, easily swayed by charlatans, with zero critica..."Hello, Feliks,
Hooray for vigorous debate! I see your entries as very useful. Thank you.
First off, take note that I am softening on the idea of a whole legislature sortitioned ... at least not as an early step. I'm still leaving the proposal up as it is on my website: thecommonlot.com ... mainly because it is simpler and draws attention.
Sure, some sortitioned legislators would be approached by fat cat lobbyists. Remember, though, that most sortitioned legislators would be making much more money -- I think I figured 90% of a sortitioned body would be experiencing a hefty raise -- since the sortitioned 'Citizen House' would be receiving the same salary that the current legislature does.
And, again, for those few corruptible members, an independent Ethnics Commission should control things.
One other protection against corruption, by the way, would be for the Citizen House to vote secretly, as the rest of the citizenry does. In that way, a lobbyist could give a member all the money in the world but would have no way of knowing if it influenced anyone's vote!
Feliks wrote: "Hello DavidIt's certainly not a demerit to a new idea if it needs a little trial-and-error, a little tinkering or tweaking. Many great ideas start out similarly.
I did not intend to steer your d..."
Feliks wrote: "Hello David
It's certainly not a demerit to a new idea if it needs a little trial-and-error, a little tinkering or tweaking. Many great ideas start out similarly.
I did not intend to steer your d..."
[ONCE AGAIN, I TRY TO REPLY TO GERARD, BUT FELICKS' COMMENTS POP UP]
Welcome, Gerard,
Good points you make. There are many different ideas and proposals about how to use random selection to increase fairness, to break up factions, to assure demographic accuracy, etc.
Beginning in 1985 when I read *Citizen Legislature* by Callenbach and Philips, I have gone to the end game, so to speak: a fully sortitioned national legislature. Three year, staggered terms. Since then, there has been increasing interest. An exponential increase of interest (look up 'sortition' on Google's Ngram).
Democracy is not well served by hardened factions.
Bitly for U.S.: https://goo.gl/Jw8Xfg
Bitly for Britons: https://goo.gl/6RN