Experiments in oversight-only IVEs (i.e., IVEs that don’t elect legislators) of governmental bodies could start small, at the local level, and work upward, to the county, state, and national levels, if justified by prior success.
Then the power of electing a portion of the legislators under their supervision could be phased in, as experience warrants, and as voters approve, and IVEs would become PEs (Proxy Electorates).
Voters might be glad to delegate the election of certain low-level officeholders, like dogcatchers, sewer commissioners, and comptrollers to Proxy Electorates. Voters know little of their qualifications and characters—and don’t want to know. Let George Do It is their unspoken attitude.
New PE members would be given a crash course on their assigned topic, and on the rules and customs of being a Proxy Elector.
PEs would gather, usually online, at regular intervals (more frequently at high levels) to hear their officeholders—and their critics—speak, and to interrogate them. They would not gather only at election time.
In the intervals between these gatherings, Proxies would have a private cyberspace forum and a Zoom site in which they could converse among themselves about what had occurred at those gatherings.
A Secretariat’s personnel would preside at meetings, take minutes, schedule speakers, maintain a library, do background checks on candidates, provide orientation sessions for newcomers, etc.
Training would include inside-look “documentaries” of the deliberations of good-outcome PEs of the past, to serve as models for how to behave. There should also be documentaries about bad-outcome PEs, as object-lessons in what not to do.
The control of important political knowledge by leaders constitutes, of course, a very basic element in perpetuating power politics. —Robert J. Pranger, The Eclipse of Citizenship, 1968, p. 46.
When facilities for research, reflection, and review exist at the center of the law-making process, they are bound to have a moderating impact on public policy. —Henry Kariel, Open Systems: Arenas for Political Action, 1969, p. 80.
About things on which the public thinks long it commonly attains to think right. —Samuel Johnson.
… if people are part of a communications area in which politics is carried on, they are… less likely to fall for demagogs or slick advertising tricks or firm handshakes sans any firmness of mind. — Lewis Dexter, in Representation, edited by J. Roland Pennock, 1968, p. 158.
Demi-legislatures should observe what is happening in corresponding Demi-legislatures in other jurisdictions and share their experiences and opinions, to discover “best practices.”
Or some daring candidate under DeMockery could cut through (and thereby accelerate) the tedious steps above to official recognition of Inner Voice Entities, by unofficially establishing an IVE of his/her own. He/she could promise voters that he/she would consult with this IVE before all important votes and abide by its directions. (The internet makes such consultation and polling possible.)
Even if there were only one well-resourced parliamentarian committed to sortition and deliberation who agreed to vote according to the outcome of a randomly selected deliberative assembly, then that single vote would represent the considered vote of the people. —Brett Hennig, The End of Politicians, 2017, p. 185.
He/she could say, “If you vote for me, you’re voting for you.” That could be a winning pitch, especially in a three-way race. A tactic like this, if successful, could spread rapidly to other candidates.
Probably some candidates would make a fuzzier (and more responsible) pledge, such as to “abide” only 90% of the time, and/or to abide only to supermajority directions.
(Probably, again, some candidates would choose to draw the IVE membership from his/her own voters, others from members of his/her party, and still others from all voters.)
Foreign countries where the current political system is twice as intolerable as America’s, or where there is actually a failed state, might well also jump ahead, skipping the cautious, step-by-step process above and adopt a full-featured version in one jump, out of desperation. They could thus leapfrog us—and even become our guiding lights.
Adam Cronkright
Ali
Ahmed R. Teleb
avanderven
avergne
Alex Kovner
azakaras
Brett Hennig
campbellwallace
Simon Threlkeld
Nick Coccoma
codyhipskind
Common Lot Sortitionist
Conall Boyle
constitutionalism
davidschecter
graytmatter
gtridimas
H.J. Hofkirchner
John Burnheim
jgarry20151
Jochen Krattenmacher
johnedwardtaylor
johnhuang865
Jonathan Crock
keithsutherland
Jacob Richter
kkoreilly
lukewhito
SimonPek
Nathan El
Nicholas Gruen
Owen Shaffer
Patrick Chalmers
Paul Gölz
peterstone
Pierre-Etienne Vandamme
pronfeld
Emil
rcaze
richwbrown
Roger Knights
roslynfuller
Pierre-Etienne Vandamme
shaharavin
tbouricius
Ted Wachtel
Joshua Laferriere
theodorestathis
towardsautonomyblog
Wayne Liebman
Yoram Gat
Oliver Milne
Equality by lot 
I will continue the discussion we were having in Ch 16 here:
“You response to my claim that Athens was not a direct democracy was to point out how complicated it was. It was a non response.”
“By not objecting, I implicitly conceded your claim that Athens’ operated its democracy mostly on the basis of representatives chosen by lot. “
Better would be to explicitly concede, provides clarity and is a good practice for instilling humility.
But I did respond to the lesson you drew from that: that a similar system could be employed today. You expressed that as follows:
“I have not seen anything in the literature indicating that the citizens of Athens were dissatisfied with their system due to not being able to vote tor their representatives. Perhaps someone can point such out.”
I replied:
“My objections are 1) that modern publics, unlike those of ancient Athens, have become accustomed to voting as a basic right, and also that they see or imagine the downsides of a mere dragnet scoop through the whole population to obtain lawmakers.”
This is your conjecture, which you have admitted to not having any empirical evidence for. I’ve never heard anyone that I have introduced sortition to voice the objection that voting is a basic right. I recently asked someone who has spoken to hundreds of people and he estimated the percentage somewhere between 5-10%. Considering that roughly half the people in the US don’t vote in presidential elections it may not be a strongly held view. Also, since voting is a recent phenomena, the cultural conditioning around it could be changed back to where it was for most of the millennia humans have lived in this world.
“The quotations by Malcolm Margolin above express these views.”
Yes, Margolin seems to believe that the public wants lawyers to rule. Is he oblivious to polls consistently showing they are among the least trusted professionals?
A note on the word “complicated.” Something can be complicated without it being intellectually challenging. If I ask directions I can get a response with many turns that is more complicated than one that has no turns. You system has lots of “turns” – steps. Perhaps, “elaborate” is a better word. The steps are supposed to safeguard against corruption , but I think the more steps, the more likelihood of corruption, as each step introduces another opportunity for it.
While not intellectually challenging, you system is time consuming to read through, and you have failed, as far as I’m concerned in providing a need for it. Seems like a cure in search of a disease. Thus I am not motivated to spend the time to read through it. Now 17 entries in what is supposedly a blog devoted to equality by lot.
To end on a positive note, you said something to the effect of indigenous people may be the early adopters of Demiocracy. I don’t know about that, but recently the Zapatistas revamped the election system to begin at the level of the neighborhood, and then scale up, somewhat akin to your first step. You might want to contact them.
Lance Hilt
LikeLike
ToTheHilt wrote, in the entry for Chapter 17:
“I will continue the discussion we were having in Ch 16 here [17]”
That wasn’t necessary. WordPress automatically notifies participants—REGISTERED participants—in a thread whenever a new comment is added. It’s better to stick to the original thread, and refresh it if not registered, so disputants can use the Find feature to locate exactly what was said previously, when needed. And so readers can get the whole thread in one place. THEREFORE I HAVE COPIED WHAT YOU POSTED BELOW AND PASTED IT INTO CHAPTER 16, HERE, WHERE IT BELONGS. Demiocracy, Chapter 16: Sortition, i.e., a purely lottery-chosen, randomized Proxy electorate, isn’t sufficiently legitimate; Democracy requires mass electoral input, ideally of a “sifting” sort | Equality by lot MY RESPONSE IS ATTACHED TO IT.
LikeLike
find/
I will reluctantly comply with your unilateral decision to move my post to the previous thread. It is a reluctant compliance, not because I do not agree with your reasoning, but rather your process. Since I believe in democratic decision-making, I think it is important to make collaborative decisions rather than dictatorial ones.
I will, however, make a more general, somewhat related, point. It is one that has been in my mind for some time now. I have become increasingly skeptical of one-person grand proposals, such as new constitutions, or this Demiocracy proposal. They are especially ironic in regards to advocating for more democratic processes since they do not employ that very process in their creation, suffering from all the maladies of that insular method. They lack diversity of perspective and lack any counters to individual human biases, including the well-known confirmation bias. Furthermore, since they do not arise out of a group process, they are much less likely to generate group interest. While they can still provide the occasional useful idea, too many such individualized efforts splinters well-intentioned efforts for social change into factions squabbling over intellectual possibilities so far off into the future they may never see the light of day. I think it’s best to leave many of the details of a more democratic process to the utilizers of such a process to refine. Sortition and citizen assemblies paint with a brand enough brush to provide an outline, without attempting to place strict boundaries on what can only be an evolving process.
I’ve also noticed that the inventors of such systems, while they may ask for input, invariably defend against nearly every criticism with the zeal that a mother defends her only child. This again, creates a fractious atmosphere and does little to promote real change. Given the unlikelihood of any wholesale adoption of such extensive schemes, I feel my time is better spent working on promoting and enacting more modest proposals.
Lance Hilt
LikeLike
TooTheHilt said:
“I will reluctantly comply with your unilateral decision to move my post to the previous thread. It is a reluctant compliance, not because I do not agree with your reasoning, but rather your process. Since I believe in democratic decision-making, I think it is important to make collaborative decisions rather than dictatorial ones.”
There was a need for speed—I had to act before a response was made on this thread by some third party and the discussion was irrevocably split. In addition, what group could I have consulted? There is none. My only appeal would have been to Yoram, and I didn’t want to bother him.
“grand proposals, such as new constitutions, or this Demiocracy proposal…. are especially ironic in regards to advocating for more democratic processes since they do not employ that very process in their creation, suffering from all the maladies of that insular method.”
How many influential clarion calls for democracy have suffered from not being group efforts? Not Paine’s Common Sense and Rights of Man. Nor Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Not any, really.
“Furthermore, since they do not arise out of a group process, they are much less likely to generate group interest.”
Wishful reasoning. First place in generating group interest historically goes, not to any collective composition, but to the effusions of one notorious King of the Mountain, Karl Marx. Second place goes to the book-length rant of an even more notorious effuser, who needn’t be named. (He did have a collaborator, FWIW.)
“While they can still provide the occasional useful idea ….”
Or maybe a key breakthrough? That’s a possibility too, no? How about my ballottery technique? By selecting the allotted from a collection of the populace’s nominations, instead of from all its randos, it harnesses populism to elevate superiority—i.e., nature’s noblemen, in the rough. That’s a new one, ain’t it? And a biggie too—akin to squaring the political circle, I reckon. No one else has suggested such a thing, AFAIK.*
“… too many such individualized efforts splinters well-intentioned efforts for social change into factions squabbling over intellectual possibilities so far off into the future they may never see the light of day. I think it’s best to leave many of the details of a more democratic process to the utilizers of such a process to refine.”
First, the squabbling is already here. It’s a large part of the purpose of this site. A few years ago I printed out almost 100 pages of such material from here, some of it pretty intense.
Second, the ballottery isn’t a mere refinement. It is a necessary element, I believe, if a lottery-dependent political system is to achieve widespread acceptance and produce good outcomes.
“Sortition and citizen assemblies paint with a brand enough brush to provide an outline, without attempting to place strict boundaries on what can only be an evolving process.”
But the CA contretemps in Ireland earlier this month calls for a long-overdue refinement of that broad brush, don’t you think? At a minimum it should make sortitionists warm up to Keith’s minority position, of detaching the allotted from direct involvement in the lawmaking fray. Demiocracy achieves this by assigning the allotted only to the rank of Proxy Electors, so it should be welcomed as a timely, constructive contribution.
“I’ve also noticed that the inventors of such systems, while they may ask for input, …”
NOT ME! (You’re verging on Strawmanning.)
“… invariably defend against nearly every criticism with the zeal that a mother defends her only child.”
Not me. I’ve been cool and collected, despite occasional provocations.
“This again, creates a fractious atmosphere and does little to promote real change.”
But real change won’t come from doing the same thing again and again and hoping that the outcome will be different. A different approach is needed, even if it disturbs the current consensus, not more of the same.
——————
*If he has, his digital publications should be introduced by fanfares like these:
Handel Coronation Anthem #1: Zadok the Priest https://youtube.com/watch?v=_vv8n-4JgMk&si=t15cfJ29iN1N-vQ6
Verdi, Aida’s Triumphal March https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=handel%20coronation%20anthem%20zadok%20the%20priest&tbm=&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5
Jeremiah Clarke, Trumpet Voluntary, https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=trumpet%20voluntary%20purcell&tbm=&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:e09cd6e1,vid:s8dItbaIYJE,st:0&vuanr=8&wptab=si:AKbGX_plptRr5696P3mng1nX6GtZP77c65mG-Ahjs5IYd5I3Fh93LEbB-ypFjz_eh6yNU_0o1Svnm74tAKkH5k-nU8-X9CkRDc022KW3HnAOAm1ZQr4sPu8h-OlutxOQuxkNHggK2l-edlcyxNGizFCZ2L5UahCuwWIO3dRWV8N9S23zT7_HqxFGMD5D5DYYtxxSoLLgIXja
LikeLike
There was a need for speed—I had to act before a response was made on this thread by some third party and the discussion was irrevocably split. In addition, what group could I have consulted? There is none. My only appeal would have been to Yoram, and I didn’t want to bother him.
Roger, you could have asked me, after all , it was my post you were moving. I’m sure I would have agreed.
LikeLike
But I couldn’t be sure you (TTH) would have agreed, or replied speedily. And I’m not aware of how WordPress enables Direct Messaging, if it enables it at all.
BTW, I vaguely recall you saying that I hadn’t explained the rationale for Demiocracy’s quirks. Here they are. (I hope this list will make an impression on Yoram too.)
LikeLike
But I couldn’t be sure you (TTH) would have agreed, or replied speedily.
Yes, the two most cited reasons for autocracy, certainty of result and swiftness of decision. This one statement revealed much about your thinking.
How many influential clarion calls for democracy have suffered from not being group efforts? Not Paine’s Common Sense and Rights of Man. Nor Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Not any, really.
But neither of those were detailed proposals on enacting democratic process, which is what I was addressing. As far as your elaborate proposal is concerned, Paine wrote, in Common Sense,
“I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier repaired when disordered”
He may not be the hero you want to champion.
I wrote:
I have become increasingly skeptical of one-person grand proposals, such as new constitutions, or this Demiocracy proposal. They are especially ironic in regards to advocating for more democratic processes since they do not employ that very process in their creation, suffering from all the maladies of that insular method. They lack diversity of perspective and lack any counters to individual human biases, including the well-known confirmation bias. Furthermore, since they do not arise out of a group process, they are much less likely to generate group interest.
Your response:
Wishful reasoning. First place in generating group interest historically goes, not to any collective composition, but to the effusions of one notorious King of the Mountain, Karl Marx. Second place goes to the book-length rant of an even more notorious effuser, who needn’t be named. (He did have a collaborator, FWIW.)
I knew Karl Marx. Karl Marx was a friend of mine. You, sir are no Karl Marx.
Seriously though, Marx wrote little on governmental structure, so the above criticism applies. I am not saying that no solo intellectual effort is useful. My statement is that efforts to fashion democratic governance are best group efforts. If you want to draw from the Marxist tradition, Lenin would be your best exemplar, but I don’t think you want to go there, despite your demonstrated authoritarian tendencies. However, he did believe, like you, that there were those who were not fit to be in any position of governance and required the guiding hand of an elite.
I’ve also noticed that the inventors of such systems, while they may ask for input, …”
NOT ME! (You’re verging on Strawmanning.)
“… invariably defend against nearly every criticism with the zeal that a mother defends her only child.”
Not me. I’ve been cool and collected, despite occasional provocations.
You are very good at not resorting to name calling, ad hominem, and character attacks, which I commend you for. The one time you did seem to slip into the latter was your reference to the Wikipedia biography on Terry Bouricius. I really had no idea why you were bringing this up. Was it an attempt to deflect from having to admit that Athens was not a direct democracy, or some envy of Terry? The entire episode was weird to me. Your response had nothing to do with the point.
That is what I would say is the most frustrating thing in debating with you. You deflect and veer from the main points being made and address irrelevant topics, responding with unasked for voluminous jargon-filled descriptions of your system. At times it is like talking to a born-again Christian, who is so full of missionary zeal he is unaware that you simply don’t speak the language he takes for granted as common ground, and, moreover, are not that interested in acquiring the vocabulary.
I also noticed, in reviewing the back and forth comments on you posts, that you ALWAYS got in the last word.
BTW, I vaguely recall you saying that I hadn’t explained the rationale for Demiocracy’s quirks.
I don’t recall doing that, perhaps I said something inadvertently that gave that impression. Until I can see a need for your elaborate system I’m not interested in making the effort to understand it’s quirks. My life is nearing its end, time is precious!
Lance Hilt
LikeLike
RK: “But I couldn’t be sure you (TTH) would have agreed, or replied speedily.
TTH: “Yes, the two most cited reasons for autocracy, certainty of result and swiftness of decision. This one statement revealed much about your thinking.
Tsk, tsk—that’s taking the low road—i.e., making an uncharitable insinuation. (BTW, I had an additional motivation, an uncharitable one myself that I fortunately didn’t publish: I thought you had violated the norms of EBL by transferring commentary on one thread to another thread because it is more current and thus has a bigger audience. I now realize you may have thought the I was abandoning that thread myself, because Chapter 17 had just been posted. Actually it had been in the EBL “hopper” for five days.)
TTH: “As far as your elaborate proposal is concerned, Paine wrote, in Common Sense,
“I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier repaired when disordered”
He may not be the hero you want to champion.
But Paine’s simple solution was electionism, which we here now all agree is What’s Wrong With the World.
“the easier repaired when disordered”
Here’s an easy-peasy repair: transfer the election of officeholders to a democratically elevated extract (by ballot-based lottery) of the populace. Bingo!
TTH: “I knew Karl Marx. Karl Marx was a friend of mine.”
I hope you’re joking. Here’s one of Marx’s democratic opponents on him: Wikipedia says: “[Guiseppe] Mazzini described Marx as “a destructive spirit whose heart was filled with hatred rather than love of mankind” and declared that “[d]espite the communist egalitarianism which [Marx] preaches he is the absolute ruler of his party, admittedly he does everything himself but he is also the only one to give orders and he tolerates no opposition.”
TTH: “You, sir are no Karl Marx.”
Thank God.
TTH: “Seriously though, Marx wrote little on governmental structure, so the above criticism applies. I am not saying that no solo intellectual effort is useful. My statement is that efforts to fashion democratic governance are best group efforts.”
But that’s not what leading detailed proponents of sortition have done, is it? E.g., Callenbach & Phillips, Burnheim, and Bouricius. What books can you cite?
TTH: “If you want to draw from the Marxist tradition, Lenin would be your best exemplar, but I don’t think you want to go there, despite your demonstrated authoritarian tendencies.”
I unceremoniously reverted your comment to its proper thread. That makes me a no worse than a copy-editor. (I do admit to copy-editing tendencies—I’ve copy-edited five books.)
TTH: “However, he did believe, like you, that there were those who were not fit to be in any position of governance and required the guiding hand of an elite.”
His elite was undemocratic, agenda-driven, and self-selected. His exclusions were politically motivated. My Proxy Electors are uncommitted and democratically elevated by the will of the populace. They are a Few, so they are “elite” in that sense, but so is any allotted group. It is a plus that they will tend to not-nominate sociopaths, neurotics, ne’er-do-wells, drunkards, and dimwits. It is a negative feature of pure sortition that it lets them in. It is a negative feature, moreover, that will impede sortition’s acceptance beyond the advisory stage, because the populace will bridle at it.
TTH: “your reference to the Wikipedia biography on Terry Bouricius. I really had no idea why you were bringing this up. Was it an attempt to deflect from having to admit that Athens was not a direct democracy, or some envy of Terry? The entire episode was weird to me. Your response had nothing to do with the point. That is what I would say is the most frustrating thing in debating with you. You deflect and veer from the main points being made and address irrelevant topics, …”
Because I had cited his proposed system as being complicated, like mine, I didn’t want to leave the impression that I was down on him, so I posted the positive material on him I found on Google and Wikipedia. Of course it had nothing to do with my point—it was pure lagniappe. But why not? Point-proving needn’t entirely dominate a comment. I liked his involvement in promoting Ranked Choice Voting and wanted to mention the topic here, hoping to inspire readers to also become proponents. Was that bad? It may be the most helpful thing I’ve done here.
TTH: “… responding with unasked for voluminous jargon-filled descriptions of your system.”
“Until I can see a need for your elaborate system I’m not interested in making the effort to understand its quirks.”
Well, as is a not-uncommon and not-unknown practice, I’m not just addressing you, but also less-antagonistic readers, both current and to come. So I sometimes take the occasion to spell things out at greater length or with less pretext than you are comfy with. As for my jargon, it isn’t abstruse. “Demi” means small, or mini, as everyone knows, or should know. “Proxy” means proxy—duh. “Ballot” means ballot and “Lottery” means lottery, so a “ballottery” means a ballot-based lottery. “DeMockery” means a mock-democracy. The most recondite term I use is “sortition”—your side’s word. (I pass over Kleroterian. 🙄)
TTH: “I also noticed, in reviewing the back and forth comments on you posts, that you ALWAYS got in the last word.”
That’s just happenstance. If I hadn’t responded, you or Yoram would ALWAYS have had the last word. There was nothing stopping you or he from topping me.
TTH: “My life is nearing its end, time is precious!”
I’m 80 myself. Maybe we’ll go out on the same day, like Adams and Jefferson. 😉
LikeLike