Sam, I am so happy to see someone else talking about sortition! I have long argued that sortition gives us the best of representative democracy (practicality) and direct democracy (true, direct, input from the "crowd.")
I am a little concerned, however, as you described "sortition can be weighted to provide a representative sample of citizens so no one particular group is ignored." Any attempt to try and ensure representation of groups by group identity would likely infringe upon the rights of someone else at an individual level.
Instead of trying to ensure "fair" representation for groups, the minority opinion can be protected by voting system design. A Quadratic voting system could ensure the majority cannot swamp desires of the minority: https://www.lianeon.org/p/the-promise-of-quadratic-voting
Any attempt to ensure total “representation” is impossible. Consider trying to represent men and women of every race, religion, political persuasion, national origin, sexual orientation and/or whatever else people decide they want to count as a constituency for representation in a place like New York City. It is interesting that the suggestion for this kind of voting system--which I think would just exacerbate the crudest identity-based politics--is being suggested at a time when it is least likely to practically work given the divisions in our society and lack of agreement on big issues.
Yes, the fundamental unit is the individual. Trying to represent individual groups is impossible because, as individuals, we are all in some "minority" of one kind of another.
Presumably there would be a right to refuse service? Unless part of the argument is that we would effectively have a "draft" but for being in politics? (I'm sure there's a joke to be made about preferring being drafted for war rather than being drafted to go to Washington DC...)
I could see sortition working on the local level. When it comes to Congress, I think a more likely way to bring in new and diverse perspectives, and bring representatives closer to constituents, is to increase the size of the House. Apart from a few new members when Alaska and Hawaii became states, it hasn’t been expanded since 1911, when the population was less than one third what it is now.
Sam, I am so happy to see someone else talking about sortition! I have long argued that sortition gives us the best of representative democracy (practicality) and direct democracy (true, direct, input from the "crowd.")
I am a little concerned, however, as you described "sortition can be weighted to provide a representative sample of citizens so no one particular group is ignored." Any attempt to try and ensure representation of groups by group identity would likely infringe upon the rights of someone else at an individual level.
Instead of trying to ensure "fair" representation for groups, the minority opinion can be protected by voting system design. A Quadratic voting system could ensure the majority cannot swamp desires of the minority: https://www.lianeon.org/p/the-promise-of-quadratic-voting
Any attempt to ensure total “representation” is impossible. Consider trying to represent men and women of every race, religion, political persuasion, national origin, sexual orientation and/or whatever else people decide they want to count as a constituency for representation in a place like New York City. It is interesting that the suggestion for this kind of voting system--which I think would just exacerbate the crudest identity-based politics--is being suggested at a time when it is least likely to practically work given the divisions in our society and lack of agreement on big issues.
Yes, the fundamental unit is the individual. Trying to represent individual groups is impossible because, as individuals, we are all in some "minority" of one kind of another.
Presumably there would be a right to refuse service? Unless part of the argument is that we would effectively have a "draft" but for being in politics? (I'm sure there's a joke to be made about preferring being drafted for war rather than being drafted to go to Washington DC...)
Good question. Maybe like jury duty where you have to have a "legitimate" reason.
I could see sortition working on the local level. When it comes to Congress, I think a more likely way to bring in new and diverse perspectives, and bring representatives closer to constituents, is to increase the size of the House. Apart from a few new members when Alaska and Hawaii became states, it hasn’t been expanded since 1911, when the population was less than one third what it is now.