A short online discussion of sortition yields familiar arguments:
[S]ortition is a form of government based upon the drawing of officials by lottery. It was used in Ancient Greece and is rarely used now. To me, it seems a lot less corruptible than a regular democracy, it seems to me that it represents the people better, by literally selecting by random, rather than certain people picking certain people because he looks cool or “my dad met him”.
If you do it with a large enough pool of people it should represent the larger public well. It works with polling science I dont see why it wouldnt work there.
Most people are incompetent at their chosen profession. Why should we assume that if they are selected randomly they will behave anymore rationally than they do in other areas of their life?
What does one’s profession have to do with the sense of one’s political vision? I’m a horrible baseball player, but that’s no indicator of my singing voice. The great thing about society is that its functions are reducible to extremely simple concepts which the vast majority can understand with little strain. A little research and a team of advisers would do the trick, I think.
Sounds crappy honestly. Putting the leadership of the country in the hands of fate isn’t smart. I admit the current system can be improved, but this isn’t the way.
Probably because it’s a dumb idea. Why would you put the future of a country in the hands of chance.
[M]ost people are incompetent when it comes to critical thinking abilities. They are ill-informed, prone to emotional influences on logic, and do not consider long-term implications. Your average person off the street is in no way capable of governing a nation. The fact they were thrown into the position does not make them incorruptible or beyond the influences that have damaged our current system. You suggest a team of advisers, but tell me, who picks the advisers? History is littered with advisers ruling through weak or incompetent figureheads. There is no reason to believe that the typical individual has the capacity to be anything but.
As it has been stated already, picking a officials randomly will not make the government anymore effectively simply because it is more representative of the population in demographic aspects. In fact, it may make the government worse. The average citizen is frighteningly ignorant.
I expect even less would get done. Sometimes we might strike gold.
The big things with this are the details. Who chooses randomly? Who runs that system? Are all government and civil service workers chosen in this way? How long do terms last? What level of power is granted? Is it citizens only?
So if you really believe that too many people are ignorant and unqualified for voting, does that mean that disenfranchisement is a good idea?
I will admit, there is a part of me that wants some limitations should be placed on who votes (tell me that you have never met a complete idiot and rued the fact that they can vote, and be honest). However, I cannot think of a way to do so fairly and in a way that would be consistent with our republican political principles. So, no, I cannot say I support new limitations on suffrage.
However, that does not mean that placing random people into positions of authority will work. The simple truth is that most people are unqualified.
I’ve never stressed over the vote much because collectively, voting outcomes are determined by financial input into campaigns. 94% of political campaigns are won by the candidate who receives the most money. It is a world shattering conclusion to find out modern democracy is an expensive magic trick, and I understand that, but its better than burying our head in the sand.
The people elected will do what their financiers tell them do, thus individual qualifications don’t matter.
This would result in
A) A bunch of idiots (Think Honey Boo Boo’s mom being minister of health)
B) A bunch of smart people but in limited areas (Think 10 people being picked and you get 4 teachers 4 doctors, a bus driver and a footballer)