Equality by lot

The typical sortition advocate looks at the theory of electoral accountable and state, well, electoral accountability is so bad it might as well not even be there. But that doesn’t let sortition off the hook. Even if electoral accountability is terrible, that doesn’t mean that lottocratic accountability is good.

Imagine a particularly corrupt society. Random selection rotates the citizens in. These citizens understand what lottery gives them, and they use their power to pay themselves exhorbitant salaries. Or they take bribes from patrons wishing to change legislation.

Even with multi-body sortition, given sufficient coordination between the multiple bodies, all participants could conspire to be corrupt and reward themselves across every panel and assembly.

Of course this is true with elections. Elected officials occasionally conspire to reward themselves across various checked and balanced institutions. If these elected officials are sufficiently discrete, then the voters are none the wiser and cannot apply appropriate electoral feedback.

I imagine a very coarse button that voters could press to hold lottocrats accountable, a sort of nuclear option similar to the practice of banishment.

Every year, voters could have an opportunity to punish a runaway lottocracy.

A referendum shall be held every year and ask, “Should the lottocrats be punished?”

1. Should the lottocrats serving right now be punished?
2. Should the lottocrats that served 1 year ago be punished?
3. Should the lottocrats that served 2 years ago be punished?
4. Should the lottocrats that served 3 years ago be punished?
5. Should the lottocrats that served 4 years ago be punished?

Filed under: Proposals, Sortition | 10 Comments »