i’ve read a more detailed description of the design of various bodies by you. Has that evolved? Have you seen or modeled an example of that full system?
So real-world experimentation is a crucial step now.... However, David Schecter and I did publish a paper on lawmaking design, which I frankly don't recall if we went into MORE detail, or if it is more of a summary. That paper is here:
We also wrote a piece on using sortition for oversight of the executive branch, which hasn't gotten much distribution or attention yet. That paper is here:
Speaking of oversight, sunset committees were tried in the 1970s, but abandoned when ambitious pols realized they didn’t advance their careers. Citizen assemblies are a better match.
> "Remember, the goal is to have the body as a whole represent the community as a whole, including its disabilities. For example, the inclusion of a person with Down's syndrome in the room, (who perhaps needed to listen to audio versions rather than read background material), may contribute unique information that no other member has, or spark empathy and insights among other members that lead to better policy, because it anticipates and accommodates the needs of such people in society. In short, the inclusion of nominally “incompetent” members may increase the competency of the group."
This is a great point, and the most convincing one with regards to the the competence of a body selected by sortition.
The argument that a body made of people who are all individually competent will also be competent as a whole, and a body made up of people who are all individually incompetent will also be incompetent as a whole, commits the fallacy of composition - assuming that what is true of the parts is necessarily true of the whole. Of course, it *can* be true, but it's not a simple logical deduction. It has to be shown, not merely assumed.
I would expand on this point and give more examples. One I can think of: if a member doesn't understand the policy discussed and why it's good, it can show the rest of the members that though the policy is good, it's hard to understand, and requires that effort is put into explaining it to the public when implemented. On the other hand, if the panel was all made of experts, they might not realise how difficult to understand their policy is, good as it is otherwise.
i’ve read a more detailed description of the design of various bodies by you. Has that evolved? Have you seen or modeled an example of that full system?
I haven't gotten into much additional detail on design for law making, figuring the principles are laid out in my paper on multi-body sortition https://delibdemjournal.org/articles/abstract/10.16997/jdd.156/
So real-world experimentation is a crucial step now.... However, David Schecter and I did publish a paper on lawmaking design, which I frankly don't recall if we went into MORE detail, or if it is more of a summary. That paper is here:
https://www.academia.edu/11673683/An_Idealized_Design_for_the_Legislative_Branch_of_Government
We also wrote a piece on using sortition for oversight of the executive branch, which hasn't gotten much distribution or attention yet. That paper is here:
https://www.academia.edu/11673705/An_Idealized_Design_for_Government_Part_2_Executive_Branch_Accountability
Speaking of oversight, sunset committees were tried in the 1970s, but abandoned when ambitious pols realized they didn’t advance their careers. Citizen assemblies are a better match.
> "Remember, the goal is to have the body as a whole represent the community as a whole, including its disabilities. For example, the inclusion of a person with Down's syndrome in the room, (who perhaps needed to listen to audio versions rather than read background material), may contribute unique information that no other member has, or spark empathy and insights among other members that lead to better policy, because it anticipates and accommodates the needs of such people in society. In short, the inclusion of nominally “incompetent” members may increase the competency of the group."
This is a great point, and the most convincing one with regards to the the competence of a body selected by sortition.
The argument that a body made of people who are all individually competent will also be competent as a whole, and a body made up of people who are all individually incompetent will also be incompetent as a whole, commits the fallacy of composition - assuming that what is true of the parts is necessarily true of the whole. Of course, it *can* be true, but it's not a simple logical deduction. It has to be shown, not merely assumed.
I would expand on this point and give more examples. One I can think of: if a member doesn't understand the policy discussed and why it's good, it can show the rest of the members that though the policy is good, it's hard to understand, and requires that effort is put into explaining it to the public when implemented. On the other hand, if the panel was all made of experts, they might not realise how difficult to understand their policy is, good as it is otherwise.