I'd prefer no election spending to no election. ie the public gives candidates funding and this is all that may be spent. We cannot diversify leadership when great candidates can't afford to run campaigns. Ideally there is a stipend for living costs too. (I can't afford to quit my day job to run. Nor can most of us risk a good job by requesting leave of absence for public service.)
It’s such an odd concept that is at first glance ridiculous, but upon reflection makes sense. Likely impossible to implement, and would come with a host of unforeseen consequences. Malcolm Gladwell did a very good review of the concept in a Revisionist History episode:
The thing I like about elections is there's some kind of accountability, imperfect though it might be. In our sortition thought experiement what would stop a few Nextdoor randos doing awful stuff without consequences? A sort of random example is the clearing of the homeless encampments from Lamport Park in Toronto; as best I can tell this was wildly popular with many people in the city, but was viewed with a range of distaste to horror by politicians, media, and activists. A sortitional government would likely be quite brutal, both literally and figuratively.
Regardless of how you feel about the encampment clearing, you must acknowledge that it was done under the purview of an elected government.
You may believe that politicians viewed it with a range of distaste to horror, but the Mayor and a majority of council supported it, which is why it happened.
Most people would support clearing out the park, but I guarantee that they would also support getting those people into proper housing instead of throwing them to the wolves.
They would also creating a system that would make a homeless encampment unthinkable, a system that would make homelessness unthinkable. Many cities and countries make the choices to do this.
Sortition sounds like a much better governance method than what we now have but how could we ever transition to that when the present system is embedded and the people with the power to change the system have no incentive to change. How do we get out of this dysfunctional first past the post system that is anti democratic. Great article but now could you address how we can institute change.
Very interesting concept. One thing I am wondering regarding the sortition idea, is will the civil service become the governors de-facto, because they will know the system and the rules best.
I think an elected body supplemented by a parallel body chosen via sortition is the best option, at least during the transition phase. Some Citizens' Assemblies have been already institutionalized in other places (https://oidp.net/en/practice.php?id=1237).
Deep state theorists think that’s already happened …
I suggest that individual ministers (or troikas perhaps) could still be elected by the assembly from its members. Or deputy ministers could report directly to parliamentary committees. Out of an assembly you’ll still have enough people with enough capability for this to work. Oversight would be no less effective than it is now and legislative direction would still be provided by the assembly.
This is what I’ve wanted to do with the senate for a long time (but I didn’t know it had a name). The question for me is term limits - how to balance the benefits of learning against the dangers of becoming an entrenched interest!
It is a mystery to me why replacing the senate with a citizen’s assembly is not the #1 project of the left. If we claim to be about people/change and opposed to maintaining the structures of oppression, why wouldn’t we want to put regular people in power?
There’s also the effect of these people returning to their communities and sharing what they’ve learned. Sharing the benefit of engaging in good faith negotiation with opposing viewpoints, face to face and seeing a direct result.
Carrying that sense of autonomy back can be an antidote to the feeling of disenfranchisement that pervades a lot of communities.
If there’s a sense that an average person can make a difference, I think it will do a lot to disempower the predators that feed off despair.
To be honest, I just hadn't thought of it. I talk about deliberative citizens' assemblies a lot, but even then I don't think I've written mainstream pieces on them often. I'll keep that in mind, however, for pieces.
Are you aware of any experiments where the effects of sortition have been studied? (assuming they're materially different from citizens' assemblies). Not doubting their potential, just really curious about comparing this across other systems, and even just different kinds of citizens' assemblies.
Yep. Draft people. By lottery. And lots of them; like half the square root of the number of eligible voters. Then set them to deliberating, like jury duty, but for four years.
There are statistical calculators online. They show you can get statistically valid representation for very large populations with a sample size of only 666 (99% confidence, 5% error margin).
I'd prefer no election spending to no election. ie the public gives candidates funding and this is all that may be spent. We cannot diversify leadership when great candidates can't afford to run campaigns. Ideally there is a stipend for living costs too. (I can't afford to quit my day job to run. Nor can most of us risk a good job by requesting leave of absence for public service.)
It’s such an odd concept that is at first glance ridiculous, but upon reflection makes sense. Likely impossible to implement, and would come with a host of unforeseen consequences. Malcolm Gladwell did a very good review of the concept in a Revisionist History episode:
https://omny.fm/shows/revisionist-history/the-powerball-revolution
I agree with Sid, we’ve really got to focus instead on getting past First Past the Post.
I'm a big MMP supporter -- so I certainly am sympathetic!
The thing I like about elections is there's some kind of accountability, imperfect though it might be. In our sortition thought experiement what would stop a few Nextdoor randos doing awful stuff without consequences? A sort of random example is the clearing of the homeless encampments from Lamport Park in Toronto; as best I can tell this was wildly popular with many people in the city, but was viewed with a range of distaste to horror by politicians, media, and activists. A sortitional government would likely be quite brutal, both literally and figuratively.
Regardless of how you feel about the encampment clearing, you must acknowledge that it was done under the purview of an elected government.
You may believe that politicians viewed it with a range of distaste to horror, but the Mayor and a majority of council supported it, which is why it happened.
I was thinking (I think correctly) that the distaste-to-horror restrained bloodthirstier tactics.
“… a few Nextdoor randos …”
Statistically impossible that enough of them would get selected for that to happen.
As the author points out, there are examples of it in history without the problem you envision.
Most people would support clearing out the park, but I guarantee that they would also support getting those people into proper housing instead of throwing them to the wolves.
They would also creating a system that would make a homeless encampment unthinkable, a system that would make homelessness unthinkable. Many cities and countries make the choices to do this.
Sortition sounds like a much better governance method than what we now have but how could we ever transition to that when the present system is embedded and the people with the power to change the system have no incentive to change. How do we get out of this dysfunctional first past the post system that is anti democratic. Great article but now could you address how we can institute change.
Definitely something I'm thinking about -- and will return to.
A Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (https://nationalcitizensassembly.ca) tasked with recommending a system and a process for implementing it.
And if the politicians fail to do so, REVOLUTION!!!
Very interesting concept. One thing I am wondering regarding the sortition idea, is will the civil service become the governors de-facto, because they will know the system and the rules best.
That is a huge challenge -- probably the biggest. That said, it's currently a major issue, too. So it wouldn't be a new one.
I think an elected body supplemented by a parallel body chosen via sortition is the best option, at least during the transition phase. Some Citizens' Assemblies have been already institutionalized in other places (https://oidp.net/en/practice.php?id=1237).
Deep state theorists think that’s already happened …
I suggest that individual ministers (or troikas perhaps) could still be elected by the assembly from its members. Or deputy ministers could report directly to parliamentary committees. Out of an assembly you’ll still have enough people with enough capability for this to work. Oversight would be no less effective than it is now and legislative direction would still be provided by the assembly.
This is what I’ve wanted to do with the senate for a long time (but I didn’t know it had a name). The question for me is term limits - how to balance the benefits of learning against the dangers of becoming an entrenched interest!
It is a mystery to me why replacing the senate with a citizen’s assembly is not the #1 project of the left. If we claim to be about people/change and opposed to maintaining the structures of oppression, why wouldn’t we want to put regular people in power?
There’s also the effect of these people returning to their communities and sharing what they’ve learned. Sharing the benefit of engaging in good faith negotiation with opposing viewpoints, face to face and seeing a direct result.
Carrying that sense of autonomy back can be an antidote to the feeling of disenfranchisement that pervades a lot of communities.
If there’s a sense that an average person can make a difference, I think it will do a lot to disempower the predators that feed off despair.
Mr. Moscrop,
I read your book (Too Dumb …) a couple years ago, but was disappointed that sortition wasn’t explored more fully as a solution.
You’ve written a couple of pieces now on electoral reform in the Globe and Mail without mentioning sortition.
Why are you holding back on putting sortition out there, as an alternative to electoral systems, in the Globe where it will get a much wider audience?
To be honest, I just hadn't thought of it. I talk about deliberative citizens' assemblies a lot, but even then I don't think I've written mainstream pieces on them often. I'll keep that in mind, however, for pieces.
Are you aware of any experiments where the effects of sortition have been studied? (assuming they're materially different from citizens' assemblies). Not doubting their potential, just really curious about comparing this across other systems, and even just different kinds of citizens' assemblies.
Yep. Draft people. By lottery. And lots of them; like half the square root of the number of eligible voters. Then set them to deliberating, like jury duty, but for four years.
There are statistical calculators online. They show you can get statistically valid representation for very large populations with a sample size of only 666 (99% confidence, 5% error margin).