Equality by lot

There are certain segments of the population (specified in the next chapter) who are often poorly treated, but who can’t complain about it to their higher-ups—or, really, to anyone—because they can’t speak out as a group, lacking representatives.

These groups, by their nature, are not in a position to allow election campaigns. They would either not be feasible, or would be too disruptive.

Nor would it be feasible for representatives to be selected completely by chance, because: 1) They would be treated dismissively, as mere nobodies, by the officials above them; and 2) They would not be as enthusiastic about, or effective at, their duties as certain others in their group—persons who would tend to be selected by a bal-lottery.

These groups should therefore employ the novel (AFAIK), election-free bal-lottery technique described in Item 2 above to select representatives.

I urge sympathizers of such underdogs to promote this means of representation. Equally, I urge “uber-dogs” to heed it, as it is in their interest to be wise in time.

Here’s a simplified example. Let’s say that some group has 1000 members, and that the agreed-upon ballot-to-lot ratio is 50:50. (For voiceless groups the ratio would be 100:0.) INTO the bal-lottery box might therefore go 10 ballots BY each member, nominating other members, and 10 lots FOR each member, automatically.

Out of the bal-lottery box (which would usually be a virtual entity in a computer) would be drawn 10 (say) names. These one-percenters would become the group’s Proxies—and collectively its Inner Voice Entity (IVE).

Excessive campaigning and ballot harvesting for a position as a Proxy is discouraged as follows. After a name is drawn, but before it is added to a reserve pool, it is set aside and some number of additional names are drawn. If any of these is a match, all the drawn names go back to the box.

Details:

• In order for the IVE to receive complaints and suggestions from its membership, it would need an email address.
• In order for Proxies to deliberate among themselves, they’d need a dedicated private forum in cyberspace.
• In order to keep it running smoothly, they’d need a webmaster—and perhaps a neutral moderator.
• In order to accomplish certain other tasks, they’d need an ancillary clerk / investigator / secretary on call.
• In order to encourage attentive participation by the Proxies, they’d benefit from some compensation.

Demiocracy, Chapter 7: Groups of Proxies, Called “Inner Voice Entities” (IVEs), Should Represent the Voiceless Members of Certain “Total Institutions,” such as the Armed Forces, Prisons, Asylums, and Hospices

Such institutions are run by bureaucrats who are supposed to be very concerned with the welfare of those under them, but who ordinarily aren’t. John Burnheim writes (in Is Democracy Possible?, p. 56):

The bureaucrat is subject to pressures that have little to do with the welfare of the clients that the office serves. Promoting ease of administration, the appearance of efficiency, loyalty to the department, and the interests of his or her immediate superiors are some of these pressures.

So, bureaucrats have a tendency to paper over problems with short-term fixes or evasions, to avoid the embarrassment of a scandal—thereby adding fuel to an even bigger scandal later on. Or they can rigidly follow a rulebook, despite its occasional defiance of common sense.

It is notorious that soldiers have much to gripe about, but have no safe way to get the “brass hats” to pay attention. This is especially important in wartime, when troops’ contributions may correct or avert horrific mistakes by their superiors. Their superiors are too-often out-of-touch dunces or tunnel-vision tacticians.

One blunder by a perfect ass of an officer might have lost America the Battle of Midway. See this Youtube video at https://youtu.be/jgd7Jdh6iYc. Here is one comment on it:

As a retired Naval aviator I was not surprised by the ‘flight to nowhere.’ Ring was incompetent and the others covered for him. I saw that many times in my career. [He referred to “the others” as “the Naval Academy protective association”.]

Ring’s underlings knew of his arbitrary inflexibility before the battle but had no way to object to it then.

Likewise, the underlings of the numerous naval officers implicated in the recent Fat Leonard contracting scandal in the Pacific weren’t safely able to object to what they suspected.

Similarly, prisoners have no collective Voice with which to tell the warden of abusive guards, or to alert the state prison board to the ineptitude, or worse, of a warden.

Inmates of asylums can be subjected to harsh treatment for decades, as in the case of Canadian (and American) residential boarding schools for indigenous children, or in “snake pit” insane asylums.

Patients in hospices, a.k.a. care homes, can be massively abused, as was revealed in some newsworthy cases in the UK, or euthanized without consent, as has allegedly occurred in Canada.

Filed under: Elections, Proposals, Sortition |