USA is a Plutocracy

[Darklordabc]

It's interesting that so many people laud the putative virtues of democracy but when true democracy is suggested they scurry back to the familiar comfort of rascals and charlatans to continue being fleeced.

Its not that at all. Its just that we don't believe that your idea of democracy, will help us become more democratic.
There are serious concerns with your sortitionsuggestion, which should make any of us very weary of it.
*No Filter. You can't discriminant against idiots and dangerous lowlifes. There is a reason the majority of politicians are white lawyers.
*Radicals. Our system elects moderates, because it is a always a compromise of competing voters, your system will elect extremists. E.g. Right now there is no chance that a KKK or an Islamist could get elected, in your system, they could be.
*Loss of political culture. We would lose the need for political debates, primaries.
*Lack of legitimacy. If a president is there merely because of a ballot, why should we respect his/her wishes? At least with Obama, we know had the backing of the majority of us.
*Loss of enthusiasm. Politicians in our system only get the job because they have put in the effort to get there. They have proved their commitment to politics. Random people may have zero interest in politics, and will have little enthusiasm or desire for being a politician, and it will show in their performance.
*No accountability. Since you our representatives didn't get voted in, and they can't get voted out, why would they give a fuck what they did? At least Obama is worried about losing elections, this fear would not be there in your system.

If this system was as great as you make it out to be, you'd expect that there would be a few democracies using it today. The fact that our system is nearly universal with all democracies, is telling us something.

[LetThereBe]

If Americans are stupid enough to get swindled by TV advertisements and a primitive sense of "us vs. them", it may be that they deserve to get screwed over by the politicians they elect.

This is very close to my view.

The problem isn't that money is in politics... the problem is that voters are ignorant and apathetic.

[LetThereBe]

Give them each 10 million dollars a year to serve. That's probably cheaper than reelection campaigns and it would seriously diminish the attractiveness of illegal bribes.

All your complaints seem to be straw men to me.

You haven't addressed the very real concerns of the incredibly ignorant running things.
Also, this eliminates the whole "those that don't want to serve should serve" kind of thing. Now the reward is very much like winning the lottery. Everyone wants to win, and not just for the power.
Aside from that, you are still trusting that the average person will be more honest than the average politician.

Do you disagree that, over time, sortition would very accurately represent the society we live in?

More accurately than representative democracy, less accurately than direct democracy.
Designing your political system solely around the goal of "accurate representation" is stupid, and in this case outliers are outright dangerous to the security of the nation.

Those that are able to make the best decisions should be in positions of power. Not those that are most likely to make decisions like most people.

[barts]

Very, very interesting comments, but of course you've offered no rationale for the comments.

You haven't addressed the very real concerns of the incredibly ignorant running things.

What make you think that sortition would result in the incredibly ignorant running things, and what makes you think that those who are no elected are not, in some cases, incredibly ignorant?

Also, this eliminates the whole "those that don't want to serve should serve" kind of thing. Now the reward is very much like winning the lottery. Everyone wants to win, and not just for the power.
Aside from that, you are still trusting that the average person will be more honest than the average politician.

Clearly the average person is more honest than the current average politician because the former isn't beholden for campaign funds to vested, monied interests.

More accurately than representative democracy, less accurately than direct democracy.
Designing your political system solely around the goal of "accurate representation" is stupid, and in this case outliers are outright dangerous to the security of the nation.

Tell me why "accurate representation" is, in fact, stupid. Surely a legislature should serve as best it can the interests of all people not just those you approve of.

Those that are able to make the best decisions should be in positions of power. Not those that are most likely to make decisions like most people.

Explain this, and how the present system in your view achieves this utopian goal of yours. If the best outcome is people who can "make the best decisions should be in positions of power" then no present electoral system achieves this.

[LetThereBe]

What make you think that sortition would result in the incredibly ignorant running things, and what makes you think that those who are no elected are not, in some cases, incredibly ignorant?

The fact that successful politicians are far and away better educated than the average citizen. When you resort to a lottery you will hit closer to average most of the time.

Clearly the average person is more honest than the current average politician because the former isn't beholden for campaign funds to vested, monied interests.

The former hasn't been presented the temptation to be dishonest... all that changes when they actually get chosen to serve. Suddenly they have plenty of corporate "friends" that will see to it that they are set for life after their service.

Tell me why "accurate representation" is, in fact, stupid. Surely a legislature should serve as best it can the interests of all people not just those you approve of.

Of course it should, and this is the difference between a good leader and an average person. A good ruler serves the interests of all people. The average person serves his/her own interests.
You are asking a group of average people to each serve his/her own interests and hope that results in what is best for the people at large. This would result in endless stalemates, and smaller segments of the population whose needs are never addressed.
A good leader knows that sometimes putting his/her own interests aside is necessary for the good of the populace at large.

Explain this, and how the present system in your view achieves this utopian goal of yours. If the best outcome is people who can "make the best decisions should be in positions of power" then no present electoral system achieves this.

While I think the present system at least ensures people with an ounce of intelligence and understanding of compromise get to power, it is far from actually placing the best person for the job. It is better than random, but far from perfect.
As I mentioned before, I see voter apathy and voter ignorance as the real problems. If people were actually passionate and knowledgeable about the issues facing the country we could get the best people for the job... or perhaps move to direct democracy and skip the representative middle-man altogether.

[minorwork]

The fact that successful politicians are far and away better educated than the average citizen. When you resort to a lottery you will hit closer to average most of the time.

A very good incentive to competently educate instead of dumb down and depend on the rich who can afford education. Help stamp out educated elitism.

The former hasn't been presented the temptation to be dishonest... all that changes when they actually get chosen to serve. Suddenly they have plenty of corporate "friends" that will see to it that they are set for life after their service.

I agree that 435 can easily be led astray. But if there are 11,000 to lead and they are permanent residents within their district, the coming and goings of corruptive practices will be more visible than when in the pen, er, in D.C. learning all the tricks of hiding corruption.

Of course it should, and this is the difference between a good leader and an average person. A good ruler serves the interests of all people. The average person serves his/her own interests.

Voting from a local office and working to compose and alter a draft until the vote for that draft gets enough votes to pass on to the Senate or President is hardly a test of a good leader. But then here in Illinois we've two good leaders of the state, leading Illinois as governor for some total of 10 years serving time in prison, and NOT for playing hide the cigar with a young intern either.

You are asking a group of average people to each serve his/her own interests and hope that results in what is best for the people at large. This would result in endless stalemates, and smaller segments of the population whose needs are never addressed.

No. Laws would be simplified and direct with sortition and a near 11,000 member House. The goal is to keep laws from being passed to see what's in them.

A good leader knows that sometimes putting his/her own interests aside is necessary for the good of the populace at large.

Whose interest is served by a candidate running for election except the candidate's interest? His puppet masters?

While I think the present system at least ensures people with an ounce of intelligence and understanding of compromise get to power, it is far from actually placing the best person for the job. It is better than random, but far from perfect.

Intelligence is so hard to establish when it is other than an agreement on positions with the person judging intelligence that I see no advantage to intelligence, but a real inclusion of the common man who is never going to be effective for not looking pretty for the TV and whose personal experience is as capable of guiding his votes as they are of an elected pretty boy with more papers than my dog.

As I mentioned before, I see voter apathy and voter ignorance as the real problems. If people were actually passionate and knowledgeable about the issues facing the country we could get the best people for the job... or perhaps move to direct democracy and skip the representative middle-man altogether.

The job as it stands does not favor the "best" unless you mean the best liar.

"No politician has ever got elected by telling the truth. It just doesn’t work to tell the masses that you are going to do as bad a job as your predecessor, and that you can’t simultaneously lower taxes while increasing quality of services. Think of it as natural selection. There are truthful politicians out there, but the liars get selected over the truth tellers." ~ Mencken

[lsbskins1]

So far, no one has made a valid argument against sortition. All is wild speculation and absurd scenarios.

What makes you think that John Doe contractor can't be bought off for less than the average politician you believe if so apt to be bought off? He would love a nicer house with a pool, and the Koch brothers would be quite happy to allow him to get the contract to build their new office building. All he has to do is vote to allow fracking and wait for the pay off when he is out of office and back to work. It is actually probably easier to insulate yourself from the appearance of corruption in that system.

There is also the fact that sortition didn't really work out so well for the Greeks. I mean, it isn't like they didn't have their own plutocracy and their set of corruptible men.

The real problem with government of any kind is that people can agree from here to kingdom come on the platitudes; we all want "prosperity and fairness and stability and freedom". We all want "better schools and efficient service". The problem is, we all simply have our own views on the best way to achieve those ends. I don't care if a Libertarian is a cynical manipulator or a true believer, I don't want his solutions applied because I think they will fail. I want to be able to vote against him and for what I think will work. Corruption is not the only problem humans have administering their world. Ill conceived solutions fuck shit up just as often, if not more often. I don't want a system that does not require anyone to "sell thier ideas in the public marketplace".

[LetThereBe]

A very good incentive to competently educate instead of dumb down and depend on the rich who can afford education. Help stamp out educated elitism.

Agree. As I say below, voter knowledge (and voter passion) are the real solutions to the issue.

I agree that 435 can easily be led astray. But if there are 11,000 to lead and they are permanent residents within their district, the coming and goings of corruptive practices will be more visible than when in the pen, er, in D.C. learning all the tricks of hiding corruption.

Not really, unless the identities of those chosen are kept secret (which is itself an interesting thought I hadn't considered). If the chosen don't need to go to Washington to vote, the corporate reps don't need to go to their districts... it can be done all remotely.
On that note, if it is being done all remotely, this again seems a more natural step to true direct democracy.

Voting from a local office and working to compose and alter a draft until the vote for that draft gets enough votes to pass on to the Senate or President is hardly a test of a good leader. But then here in Illinois we've two good leaders of the state, leading Illinois as governor for some total of 10 years serving time in prison, and NOT for playing hide the cigar with a young intern either.

I didn't say the system we have now gives us only the best leaders (thought it at the very limits it to those with charisma and above-average public speaking skills). I'm saying that it is better than average.
The "common man" tends to have agendas to serve... except it may be his/her religion, his/her union, or his/her bigoted hate instead of his/her political party.

No. Laws would be simplified and direct with sortition and a near 11,000 member House. The goal is to keep laws from being passed to see what's in them.
Whose interest is served by a candidate running for election except the candidate's interest? His puppet masters?

Sortition would be a laughable mess. Yeah, laws would be "simple" and since 98% of the legislators won't have any legal background we will end up with an overwhelming number of laws that are too ambiguous to be useful or stepping on the toes of past legislation. The court system will be 100 times as burdened as it is now.
Of course this assumes that anything would be able to pass at all.
The candidate serves the interest of the people, not just his own person. A single mother may eagerly vote to give every single mother a mansion. That is in her interest, but it wouldn't be sustainable for the nation. A good leader would recognize that even if she were a single mother and it was good for her, it wouldn't be good for the country. As a good leader she would vote against her own interests.

Intelligence is so hard to establish when it is other than an agreement on positions with the person judging intelligence that I see no advantage to intelligence, but a real inclusion of the common man who is never going to be effective for not looking pretty for the TV and whose personal experience is as capable of guiding his votes as they are of an elected pretty boy with more papers than my dog.

Haha, no, I disagree. Intelligence (especially as it relates to political issues) can be known. Bush was mocked for his ignorance and speaking gaffes, but he was still far better than the average American.
Say hello to your sortition chosen legislator that will soon be deciding policy for 350,000,000 people!

The job as it stands does not favor the "best" unless you mean the best liar.

It favors those with charisma, it favors those with intelligence. As I readily admitted, the current system doesn't give us the best. It gives us the "better than average".

[Peter]

What makes you think that John Doe contractor can't be bought off for less than the average politician you believe if so apt to be bought off? He would love a nicer house with a pool, and the Koch brothers would be quite happy to allow him to get the contract to build their new office building. All he has to do is vote to allow fracking and wait for the pay off when he is out of office and back to work. It is actually probably easier to insulate yourself from the appearance of corruption in that system.

We make everyone selected filthy stinking rich for the rest of their lives, just like today. The big advantage is that these people, unlike professional politicians, would go into office owing no one for where they are. They can actually vote what they think instead of the party line.

There is also the fact that sortition didn't really work out so well for the Greeks. I mean, it isn't like they didn't have their own plutocracy and their set of corruptible men.

I wasn't aware that the greeks filled government office at random from the population but one failure does not doom the concept.

The real problem with government of any kind is that people can agree from here to kingdom come on the platitudes; we all want "prosperity and fairness and stability and freedom". We all want "better schools and efficient service". The problem is, we all simply have our own views on the best way to achieve those ends. I don't care if a Libertarian is a cynical manipulator or a true believer, I don't want his solutions applied because I think they will fail. I want to be able to vote against him and for what I think will work. Corruption is not the only problem humans have administering their world. Ill conceived solutions fuck shit up just as often, if not more often. I don't want a system that does not require anyone to "sell thier ideas in the public marketplace".

A randomly chosen governing body is a public marketplace in miniature, that's the point.


So far all I'm hearing from everyone is fear of change and imaginary bogey men erected to reinforce that fear. Humans are strange animals because they'll stay in an abusive relationship out of fear of change. We the people are currently in an abusive relationship with our political system.

[Darklordabc]

We the people are currently in an abusive relationship with our political system.

Maybe thats true, but jumping out a ten story window to escape an abusive relationship is not a good idea.

A randomly chosen governing body is a public marketplace in miniature, that's the point.

No, its the exact opposite. People like Ron Paul could never become president, because the marketplaces does not value his ideas enough. If you choose randomly who becomes president, then the marketplace has zero say in who gets elected... Ron Paul would probably love sortition to be implemented, its the only chance he has.

[barts]

Maybe thats true, but jumping out a ten story window to escape an abusive relationship is not a good idea.

Bad analogy. A better one would be the victim, throwing the abuser out the ten story window.

[lsbskins1]

We make everyone selected filthy stinking rich for the rest of their lives, just like today. The big advantage is that these people, unlike professional politicians, would go into office owing no one for where they are. They can actually vote what they think instead of the party line.

If the party line was required, I doubt you would see a Ben Nelson or a Blanche Lincoln or an Olympia Snowe. And as much as I agree that Citizens United is dangerous, we have the solution at our fingertips. Don't fucking vote for people who tell you they can increase your services and cut your taxes. If the electorate used the collective brain you seem to have so much faith in, all the money in the world for political ads and phone polls and mailings wouldn't make one bit of difference. If the masses are ignorant enough to sell their votes TO politicians who feed them a line of bullshit, what the hell makes you think they won't vote just as stupidly themselves?

I wasn't aware that the greeks filled government office at random from the population but one failure does not doom the concept.

What dooms the concept is not "one" failure, but the fact that Athenian democracy was never very stable. It lasted for a long time, but it constantly evolved and it evolved because of many issues. One of those issues was that very often, it is counter-productive to have a baker deciding if it is appropriate to go to war. The system constantly evolved towards exclusion. When every citizen can vote on every issue, no matter how complicated, there is a powerful incentive to redefine the term "citizen"when failures occur and that is just what happened in Athens. Less and less people held the title as the years progressed. The oligarchs/plutocrats always find their way to control. The lottery system provided the administrators, but as the number of folks defined as "citizen" shrank, so did the lottery pool. And, if the lottery system and the all citizens council system proved inefficient and unweildy in Athens, where the population was miniscule in comparison to the US and from the very beginning, only about 20% of their population was eligible to vote, what do you think would happen now? The first time someone like my uncle Elmer was in office and had to be in charge of some commitee that was deciding what to do about Iran and its nuclear arsenal, you would shit your pants and know what a mistake you had made.

A randomly chosen governing body is a public marketplace in miniature, that's the point.

No it isn't. Be realistic. It is a mass of ignorance on most issues. Would that it were different, but most people have a hard time being knowledgable about one very specific thing.

So far all I'm hearing from everyone is fear of change and imaginary bogey men erected to reinforce that fear. Humans are strange animals because they'll stay in an abusive relationship out of fear of change. We the people are currently in an abusive relationship with our political system.

I'm not the least bit terrified of change. But I would prefer the change be positive change. What terrifies me is allowing about 50% of the people I deal with in my daily life the power to make monumental decisions that affect the world when they are either too stupid or too lazy to figure out that you could erradicate every aspect of government except the military, Social Security and Medicare and still run deficits at the current tax rates.