A Paper and a Book Review

Posted on June 4, 2010 by peterstone

The current issue of the journal Social Science Information (vol. 49, no. 2, June 2010) features a lead article entitled “Three Arguments for Lotteries.” In addition, the current issue of Philosophical Quarterly (vol. 60, issue 240, July 2010) features a book review of Oliver Dowlen’s The Political Potential of Sortition. The relevant links are as follows:

http://ssi.sagepub.com/current.dtl

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117997268/home

The author of both pieces, Peter Stone, is a noted authority on lotteries. I recommend his work very highly to you all (he says tongue firmly planted in cheek).

Filed under: Distribution by lot, Sortition, Theory | 2 Comments »

Encyclopedia Entry on the Lot

Posted on May 28, 2010 by peterstone

The political scientist Joseph Colomer has published several entries in Sage’s new International Encyclopedia of Political Science, including one on “Election by Lot.” Check it out here— 

http://works.bepress.com/josep_colomer/29/

The article lists some interesting uses of sortition, including some examples from Spain and Latin America with which I was completely unfamiliar. I intend to write to him and ask him for further information about them. 

Colomer does make two arguments about which I have questions. First, he suggests that sortition makes sense “in setting in which an assembly of members or a representative council makes decisions by broad consensus or unanimity.” But I don’t see why this should be the case. Athenian juries decided by majority rule. Second, he suggests that “procedures of rotation by turns of high public offices” will “a priori and in the long term, produce the same effect of random selection as lotteries.” I sincerely doubt that this is true. For one thing, Colomer assumes that sortition always accompanies short terms of office without reappointment. There’s no reason “a priori” why this should be the case. A comparison of the respective merits of sortition-plus-short-terms and rotation-plus-short-terms is just not the same as a comparison of sortition per se and rotation per se. Second, sortition can do things that rotation cannot. Rotation is predictable, whereas sortition (if done with a short enough lead time) is not. This can be good or bad. Predictability makes it possible to bribe or threaten future officeholders, but it also allows officeholders to prepare for their jobs in advance. I discuss the topic in some detail in chapter 5 of my forthcoming book.

On an unrelated note–if you happen to be an Irish lottery enthusiast, then you’re in luck. I’ll be giving a talk at Trinity College Dublin in a few weeks. Drop me a line if you want to know more.

Filed under: Sortition | 5 Comments »

A New Experimental Study

Posted on May 6, 2010 by peterstone

Here’s a paper that uses experiments to understand popular attitudes towards coin tossing–

“Decisions by coin toss: Inappropriate but fair” by Gideon Keren & Karl Teigen. Judgment and Decision Making, April 2010, Pages 83-101.

Abstract: In many situations of indeterminacy, where people agree that no decisive arguments favor one alternative to another, they are still strongly opposed to resolving the dilemma by a coin toss. The robustness of this judgment-decision discrepancy is demonstrated in several experiments, where factors like the importance of consequences, similarity of alternatives, conflicts of opinion, outcome certainty, type of randomizer, and fairness considerations are systematically explored. Coin toss is particularly inappropriate in cases of life and death, even when participants agree that the protagonists should have the same chance of being saved. Using a randomizer may seem to conflict with traditional ideas about argument-based rationality and personal responsibility of the decision maker. Moreover, a concrete randomizer like a coin appears more repulsive than the abstract principle of using a random device. Concrete randomizers may, however, be admissible to counteract potential partiality. Implications of the aversion to use randomizers, even under circumstances in which there are compelling reasons to do so, are briefly discussed.

Filed under: Distribution by lot, Experiments | 4 Comments »

Lotteries in Chicago

Posted on April 27, 2010 by peterstone

Just got back last night from Chicago, where I attended the latest meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Always an interesting conference, although they have expanded in recent years, which frankly means a lot more sub-par papers. It also means more flake-outs–I was supposed to present a paper on a panel with 2 other papers, but one of them was withdrawn in advance of the conference, and the authors of the other simply never showed up. (Needless to say, neither one was a Kleroterian…)

My paper was not directly on lotteries; rather, it dealt with non-reasoned decision-making more broadly. Some Kleroterians have probably seen an earlier version of it. There was also, however, a paper presented critiquing James Fishkin’s work, as well as the broader idea of “deliberative mini-publics” achieved through random selection. The author, Anna Drake, teaches at Queen’s University, in Canada. I spoke to her after the panel, and she might be interested in sharing her work with our group.

Filed under: meta, Sortition | 1 Comment »

Lottery Voting

Posted on April 20, 2010 by peterstone

I’m reading Allan Gibbard’s paper on Lottery Voting, i.e., the “Random Dictator” rule. According to this rule, people vote for candidates the same way they normally would, but instead of the votes being counted, one vote is selected at random, and the outcome of that vote implemented. (“Manipulation of Schemes that Mix Voting with Chance,” Econometrica 45, April 1977). There have been a number of philosophical discussions of the idea over the years–most notable Akhil Reed Amar’s paper in the Yale Law Journal (1984)–but Gibbard’s paper is the central paper on the mathematics of the rule. Unhappily, the paper is very technical, and I find myself stuck at one point in the argument. Does anyone know the paper particularly well? I could use some guidance here.

Filed under: Elections, Sortition, Theory | 4 Comments »

Kleroterians at the WPSA

Posted on April 5, 2010 by peterstone

This weekend, the Western Political Science Association (WPSA) held its annual meeting at the Hyatt Regency in San Francisco. A panel held yesterday (Saturday, April 3) featured two Kleroterians, Joel Parker and myself. No pics got taken but trust us–it happened.

I plugged the blog at the meeting. If you’re reading this blog for the first time as a result, welcome. And don’t forget–we have a Facebook page as well :)

Filed under: meta | 3 Comments »

Lotteries for Cab Licenses

Posted on March 2, 2010 by peterstone

Just when you thought the anti-lottery arguments couldn’t get any stupider…

http://www.southmanchesterreporter.co.uk/news/s/1194246_black_cab_lottery_draw_will_discriminate_against_muslims

I would suggest that anyone who thinks that simply entering a lottery for a cab license is “blasphemous” needs to read Thomas Gataker’s The Nature and Use of Lots (now back in print thanks to Conall Boyle). It’s almost 4 centuries old, but it’s more up-to-date than the religious texts that many of these folks are using to control their lives.

Filed under: Distribution by lot | 5 Comments »

The Common Lot

Posted on February 24, 2010 by peterstone

The film “The Common Lot” has a website–

http://new.thecommonlot.com/

I viewed the trailer, and I must say–I don’t think the director is going to be the next Emile de Antonio. Still, it sounds like a very interesting project, and I’m ordering a copy of the DVD. I’ve also joined the film’s FB page. I hope other Kleroterians will try and make contact with the filmmakers.

Filed under: Sortition | 1 Comment »

We’ve Got Our Work Cut out for Us

Posted on February 19, 2010 by peterstone

Spotted the following quote on a message board a few minutes ago:

“I actually agree with getting rid of re-elections, but as far as sortition, I think there are too many stupid fucks in the world.”

Isn’t democracy fun?

The message board is at

http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?p=32203679

Filed under: Sortition | 4 Comments »

Repair California

Posted on February 17, 2010 by peterstone

Nobody has commented yet on Repair California’s efforts to get referenda on the ballot calling for a state constitutional convention. It may be a bit late to start a discussion on the topic, given that those efforts appear to have fallen apart. But due to the connection with sortition, it might be worth a bit of our attention.

Repair California’s proposal would have selected a constitutional convention partially by lot. A large number of delegates to the convention would be elected by assembly district-level meetings of randomly-selected citizens. That’s complicated enough, but that’s only the procedure for selecting some of the delegates; others would be appointed by elected officials and by Indian tribes.

Ultimately, I think the complexity of the scheme has worked against Repair California. I gather that one of the reasons for going for something so complex–instead of, say, a randomly-selected constitutional convention, as proposed by Joel Parker–was a desire to be “realistic” and not too “radical.” But being radical can be very reasonable if it allows you to express and defend a clearly principled solution to a problem. Repair California’s scheme is so complicated that it’s really hard to say, this is why the proposal is good for democracy. And so being “realistic” can actually lead to nothing getting done.

A related note gets struck by this article–

http://foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/john-wildermuth/6453-vague-promises-not-enough-convention-plan

It notes the difficulty in putting forth a convention plan without any clear sense of just what that convention might do, or what problem it might solve. After all, just because all Californians agree that the “system” is broken, it doesn’t mean they agree as to WHY it’s broken. If you try very hard not to take a stand on this question, the end result is that it’s hard to get anyone excited about inducing change. The same is true if you try too hard to keep the plan “safe” (again, being “realistic”). California’s fiscal woes stem in large part from Proposition 13’s tax restrictions, but Repair California’s constitutional convention would be unable to list Proposition 13 entirely, although it could tinker with it around the edges. This was done because Proposition 13 is regarded as politically dangerous–too many elderly people with absurdly low property taxes ready to defend it–but as a result it’s hard to get people excited who think Proposition 13 is a major part of the problem.

One more comment–there’s still a movement to get a proposition on the ballot lifting the 2/3 majority rule for the state budgetary process. That, IMHO, would go a huge way towards making California less of a fiscal train wreck. It’s well worth supporting.

Filed under: Initiatives, Sortition | 2 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »