Terry, I appreciate that you've put an amazing amount of research into your writing, but I want to ask you a bigger question. Are your citations of history what you consider giving affirmation of your beliefs in sortition? The reason I ask is because I find myself asking, as I read your blog, whether it is so profound whatever the founders of the constitution felt (or the founders of any government), or whether it's more meaningful to work on what is needed now. I guess some may disagree, but I think it's pretty obvious that right now, no matter who you are or what your background is, most people believe that the US and the human race as a whole, hasn't figured out how to make the right government, or hasn't implemented that government in any case. This seems self-evident just by the profound problems confronting us right now.
My plan for the book is to first clear the weeds... that the current electoral system, from inception to implementation is not democratic, and CANNOT BE MADE to be democratic... and then focus in on the sortition alternative. Most sortition advoicates seem to see sortition is a beneficial "add on" that may even help shore up electoral democracy, which has been losing legitimacy. The reason for my book strategy is that 99% of political scientists and even sortition advocates accept that elections are a flawed, yet good and useful thing that should be maintained (with fixes), while few recognize that continuing partisan elections is the core problem actual democracy faces.
Terry, your response does clear up your strategy and I agree yours is a different view than that of the Sortition Foundation and other advocates. I think you're suggesting elections were sort of a "red herring" by the elite property owners, a deflection against "government of the people." Forgive me, though, but I wouldn't call elections the core problem democracy faces. There are much greater problems, such as the desire for concentration of power and wealth. And surely, you'd agree that a government created through sortition would also have issues.
Yes, sortition democracy will have problems... and it can be argued that comparing my IDEAL sortition model with the defective real world electoral models is sort of unfair. A key is to build in a self-improving mechanism (which I do). But elections have a self-corrupting dynamic. A reason I say that elections are the core problem is that they bake in self-selection of nominees with a lust for power (not all of them... but way too0 many), and then also through rational ignorance allow politicians to become semi-permanent (as individuals sometimes, but as a class for certain), where corruption can grow steadily worse. Future chapters will address the negative psychological tendencies of politicians who are told they are "winners" and "special" and "deserve power" etc. David Owen (former Foreign Minister in the UK) coined the term "Hubris Syndrome" and proposed it be added as a recognized psychological malady that elections can inflict on many people. In short the problems YOU mention are exacerbated and locked in through elections, while random selection and rotation can avoid those maladies. (but you are correct it requires good design, constant monitoring and improvements).
Terry, I appreciate that you've put an amazing amount of research into your writing, but I want to ask you a bigger question. Are your citations of history what you consider giving affirmation of your beliefs in sortition? The reason I ask is because I find myself asking, as I read your blog, whether it is so profound whatever the founders of the constitution felt (or the founders of any government), or whether it's more meaningful to work on what is needed now. I guess some may disagree, but I think it's pretty obvious that right now, no matter who you are or what your background is, most people believe that the US and the human race as a whole, hasn't figured out how to make the right government, or hasn't implemented that government in any case. This seems self-evident just by the profound problems confronting us right now.
My plan for the book is to first clear the weeds... that the current electoral system, from inception to implementation is not democratic, and CANNOT BE MADE to be democratic... and then focus in on the sortition alternative. Most sortition advoicates seem to see sortition is a beneficial "add on" that may even help shore up electoral democracy, which has been losing legitimacy. The reason for my book strategy is that 99% of political scientists and even sortition advocates accept that elections are a flawed, yet good and useful thing that should be maintained (with fixes), while few recognize that continuing partisan elections is the core problem actual democracy faces.
Terry, your response does clear up your strategy and I agree yours is a different view than that of the Sortition Foundation and other advocates. I think you're suggesting elections were sort of a "red herring" by the elite property owners, a deflection against "government of the people." Forgive me, though, but I wouldn't call elections the core problem democracy faces. There are much greater problems, such as the desire for concentration of power and wealth. And surely, you'd agree that a government created through sortition would also have issues.
Yes, sortition democracy will have problems... and it can be argued that comparing my IDEAL sortition model with the defective real world electoral models is sort of unfair. A key is to build in a self-improving mechanism (which I do). But elections have a self-corrupting dynamic. A reason I say that elections are the core problem is that they bake in self-selection of nominees with a lust for power (not all of them... but way too0 many), and then also through rational ignorance allow politicians to become semi-permanent (as individuals sometimes, but as a class for certain), where corruption can grow steadily worse. Future chapters will address the negative psychological tendencies of politicians who are told they are "winners" and "special" and "deserve power" etc. David Owen (former Foreign Minister in the UK) coined the term "Hubris Syndrome" and proposed it be added as a recognized psychological malady that elections can inflict on many people. In short the problems YOU mention are exacerbated and locked in through elections, while random selection and rotation can avoid those maladies. (but you are correct it requires good design, constant monitoring and improvements).