Eygyptian Christians to choose Pope by lot

Posted on March 19, 2012 by Conall Boyle

In a report in today’s (London) Independent:

Pope Shenouda, 88, [who has just died] was famous as a cautious Coptic leader, all-powerful within his community, who for four decades had dealt with the Egyptian government. … His successor, to be chosen by a synod of bishops, is unlikely to exercise the same authority in defence of Egypt’s embattled Christian minority. The bishops will choose three candidates, whose names are written on pieces of paper and placed in a box. The final choice is made by a blindfolded boy, who picks one of the names.

Continue reading →

Filed under: Religion | Tagged: | 9 Comments »

Bristol Radical History Group: From Athens to the Electoral Lottery

Posted on March 17, 2012 by Yoram Gat

Dan Bennett, of the Bristol Radical History Group, presents a description of the Athenian democratic system and proposes a sortition party.

Cheerleaders for parliamentary democracy often hark back semi-legendary ‘golden ages’ as a foundation of the modern electoral process. Do these myths have any basis in reality and what relevance do they have today? Dan Bennett uncovers the hidden history of Athenian popular democracy and proposes a modern alternative.

‘Every Cook Can Govern’: From Athens to the Electoral Lottery – part 1, part 2, part 3.

Filed under: Athens, Elections, Proposals, Sortition | 19 Comments »

Proposal for presentation at Wikimania in Washington 12-15 July

Posted on March 15, 2012 by Common Lot Sortitionist

For those of you who use Wikipedia, notice that ‘Wikimania’ will be in Washington 12-15 July.

I have proposed a presentation: “Why Elections Are the Problem and How To Make Democracy Real“.

IF YOU ARE GOING or KNOW ANYONE WHO IS GOING please encourage acceptance of this presentation.

Thanks.

Filed under: Elections, Participation, Sortition | 1 Comment »

Plutonomy — how the 1% has hijacked democracy

Posted on March 14, 2012 by Conall Boyle

An excellent paper on the tricks the richest 1% have played to turn our political democracy of ‘one person one vote’ into financial despotism:

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue59/Fullbrook59.pdf

It’s a gripping read. So is Sortition the answer? If so, why?

Filed under: Elections, Sortition | Tagged: | 12 Comments »

A summary of Chouard’s talk, and links to some concurring posts

Posted on March 12, 2012 by Yoram Gat

Below is my itemized summary of the ideas presented by Ètienne Chouard:

  1. The core of democracy is political equality
  2. Elections are anti-democratic
    • Not designed to be democratic, and no such claims made by its designers
    • History shows that elections put the rich in power
    • The powerful support elections – cannot be a threat to them
    • It is a paradox that the entire political spectrum supports elections
    • Based on a myth – being able to choose the good
    • Rule by the worst – “good people don’t care about governing”
    • Elections are appropriate for small scale – depend on knowing people and being able to follow what they do, in large systems, the voters do not know the candidates and do not know what they do

    Continue reading →

Filed under: Athens, Participation, Proposals, Sortition | 11 Comments »

Rasmussen: 43% Say Random Choices From Phone Book Better Than Current Congress

Posted on March 8, 2012 by Yoram Gat

Rasumussen has results for a new round of their occasional survey measuring support for sortition (they don’t quite phrase it this way):

With positive ratings for Congress at an all-time low, it may come as no surprise that a plurality of voters nationwide believes a group of people randomly selected from a telephone book would do a better job than the current legislators.

Continue reading →

Filed under: Elections, Opinion polling, Sortition | 16 Comments »

David Grant talks about sortition

Posted on March 4, 2012 by Yoram Gat

The Reading Eagle reports:

Using a lottery to name the members of a citizen legislature would make that legislature more truly representative of the population and uncouple the link between money and the influence it buys in elections.

That was part of a message David Grant delivered to 17 people gathered Saturday in the Reading Friends Meetinghouse.
Continue reading →

Filed under: Athens, History, Press, Sortition | Leave a comment »

Rousseau’s general will and sortition

Posted on March 2, 2012 by keithsutherland

Along with its famous opening sentence: ‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains’ Rousseau’s Social Contract is best known for its clear distinction between sovereignty and government. The latter was a delegated administrative function: the ‘Prince’ could either be single, few, or many (monarchy, aristocracy or democracy) but was a mere servant of the sovereign popular will. Although Rousseau argued that democratic government was more suitable for small states, he had no problem in principal with the notion of elected delegates administering government under the watchful eye of the sovereign people and subject to their dismissal if the delegated mandate was breached.
Continue reading →

Filed under: Ballot measures, Distribution by lot, Elections, History, Sortition | 44 Comments »

A good link on new ideas for ‘democracy’

Posted on February 29, 2012 by Conall Boyle

Apologies if this has appeared before, but there is a very good article from a French site about new ideas for Democracy, including some we would recognise here

http://www.booksandideas.net/Democracy-Bridging-the.html?lang=fr

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Dunbar’s number

Posted on February 28, 2012 by Yoram Gat

We have in the past discussed the issue of the desirable size of an allotted chamber (or more generally, the size of the set of decision makers). The two contrasting constraints are the need for representativity on the one hand which demands the chamber is not too small, and the need to avoid mass political effects which demands that the chamber is not too big.

One important factor which determines the size at which mass political effects become influential is the ability of the group members to have face-to-face social interactions. Once group members are unable to interact with others personally, the system becomes opaque, promoting new ideas becomes increasingly difficult for the average member, and power brokering emerges. In such a situation, power is no longer equally distributed in the chamber.
Continue reading →

Filed under: Sortition | 12 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »