25
Is democracy without elections possible? Could a lottery be better? (aeon.co)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/politics@beehaw.org
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For most people today, public elections are synonymous with democracy. However, between 508 and 322 BCE, Athenians favoured a lottery system known as ‘sortition’. They largely believed it to be more fair, representative and responsive to the public interest than elections, which are often influenced by money and can foster destructive political polarisation. In this animation, Michael Vazquez, associate director of the Parr Center for Ethics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, breaks down both the potential of lottery-based systems and their limits. In particular, he highlights an updated lottery system conceived by the US philosopher Alex Guerrero, designed to address flaws in earlier models and some of the most pressing problems in contemporary electoral politics.

all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

I was thinking about voter suppression and systems to avoid it the other day.

Imagine a system that runs as normally (either first past or a sensible voting system) unless >50% of eligible voters fail to vote or vote 'none' or something like that, and then a random citizen is put in power.

While it would probably help prevent active voter suppression, I have to imagine a combined system where some members are lifelong politicians and some are just thrown in the deep end would not work super well. Given that most elected officials need to spend most of their first term just learning how things work. Though that is also a problem that needs to be addressed regardless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Imagine a system that runs as normally (either first past or a sensible voting system) unless >50% of eligible voters fail to vote or vote 'none' or something like that, and then a random citizen is put in power.

    This is actually interesting, but I'd change it a bit. Every voter who doesn't vote is treated as a vote towards "none", and candidates must defeat the "none" category as well. If "none" wins, then that means none of the candidates won, and you resolve it through some other means (like lottery).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    lol. Propaganda to get Americans used to rigged elections

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (8 children)

    In theory, rule by lottery might sound good...but have you met the average person living next door to you? Just imagine what President Cletus of Buttfuck, Appalachia would do with a ten year term in office.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    There is lots of evidence that when people are given the space and time to take account of issues they take it seriously, looking down on people because they are poor and rural isn't a good look.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    From my understanding, a few places have tested it, and it always works surprisingly well. Arguably better than career politicians. It sounds counter intuitive, I know, but how much of that is because we spent the last 4+ millennia living under career politicians and being propagandized by them?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Appalachia has been politically stepped on by everyone for generations. That's a big part of why they're poor. Cletus may not be an expert on how to run a country but I bet he would help out some Appalachians. Your blatant classism is pretty gross.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent