 
     |
| Sortition, anyone? 'The Worst People Run for Office. It’s Time for a Better Way.' (Page 1/1) |
|
rinselberg
|
OCT 31, 08:48 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Patrick:
One should also remember that the last election the Palestinian people had was 17 years ago in 2006, basically a generation ago. Did the Palestinian people have any idea that once Hamas was elected, they'd never get an opportunity to throw the bastards out? Doubtful.
No argument from me that Hamas is not despicable. The Palestinian people themselves all just pawns in this deadly game between power-hungry men with too much authority. |
|
This remark from Patrick, in another thread, has prompted me to create this New Topic, because the phrase "power-hungry men with too much authority" reminded me of an article I scrolled through not too long ago.
"The Worst People Run for Office. It’s Time for a Better Way."
Adam Grant for the New York Times; August 21, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/202...tions-democracy.html
| quote | | Dr. [Adam] Grant, a contributing [New York Times] opinion writer, is an organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, the author of “Think Again” and the host of the TED podcast “Re:Thinking.” |
|
I don't want to duplicate the entire article, but here's how it starts:
| quote | On the eve of the first debate of the 2024 presidential race, trust in government is rivaling historic lows. Officials have been working hard to safeguard elections and assure citizens of their integrity. But if we want public office to have integrity, we might be better off eliminating elections altogether.
If you think that sounds anti-democratic, think again. The ancient Greeks invented democracy, and in Athens[,] many government officials were selected through sortition—a random lottery from a pool of candidates. In the United States, we already use a version of a lottery to select jurors. What if we did the same with mayors, governors, legislators, justices and even presidents?
People expect leaders chosen at random to be less effective than those picked systematically. But in multiple experiments led by the psychologist Alexander Haslam, the opposite held true. Groups actually made smarter decisions when leaders were chosen at random than when they were elected by a group or chosen based on leadership skill.
Why were randomly chosen leaders more effective? They led more democratically. “Systematically selected leaders can undermine group goals,” Dr. Haslam and his colleagues suggest, because they have a tendency to “assert their personal superiority.” When you’re anointed by the group, it can quickly go to your head: I’m the chosen one. |
|
Here's another paragraph, farther down:
| quote | | In ancient Athens, people had a choice about whether to participate in the lottery. They also had to pass an examination of their capacity to exercise public rights and duties. In America, imagine that anyone who wants to enter the pool has to pass a civics test — the same standard as immigrants applying for citizenship. We might wind up with leaders who understand the Constitution. |
|
I am not suggesting that all elective offices, all across the land, suddenly be changed to offices that are filled by a lottery of the kind that's just been described.
I think there could be viable ways to increase the use of sortitions for various governing boards, or select committees, and the like. Selection by sortition, instead of by vote count in public elections. A city council? The governing board for a hospital or healthcare district? School boards? Civilian review boards for reviewing the actions and policies of police departments?
"Sortition..." a word you can toss around for style-points at your next cocktail party or other social gathering.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-01-2023).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
NOV 01, 06:21 AM
|
|
Well... if we're going to look at this honestly, there are a few problems...
1 - Citizen's United was a bad decision. I realize Democrats were against it originally, and Republicans were for it, but it very much turned out to be a bad court decision because it's single-handedly allowed foreign governments to funnel money through corporations to PACs and campaigns.
2 - The parties are corrupted. The Republican party has less nuance in their bylaws, but the Democrat party can literally just pick whomever they want, regardless of the primary votes. They do this with Super Delegates, but they can actually pick candidates outright if one drops out, and transfer votes from one candidate to another.
3 - People who WANT power are the ones who seek it.
So... there's that.
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
NOV 01, 08:45 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Well... if we're going to look at this honestly, there are a few problems...
1 - Citizen's United was a bad decision. I realize Democrats were against it originally, and Republicans were for it, but it very much turned out to be a bad court decision because it's single-handedly allowed foreign governments to funnel money through corporations to PACs and campaigns.
2 - The parties are corrupted. The Republican party has less nuance in their bylaws, but the Democrat party can literally just pick whomever they want, regardless of the primary votes. They do this with Super Delegates, but they can actually pick candidates outright if one drops out, and transfer votes from one candidate to another.
3 - People who WANT power are the ones who seek it.
So... there's that. |
|
1 Citizen's United ALLOWS LEGAL BRIBES IN HUGE AMOUNTS from corpRATS
2 OF COURSE THEY ARE see above
3 the old roman rule elect NO-ONE who wants the power
only those who regard the office as a duty not a quest for power
never re-elect any one ever in succession one year term and done
|
|
|
|