"it is hard to imagine a society advancing to sortition without maintaining a parallel system of elections for a substantial time"
I would say it is a political mirage to believe a society can "advance" to sortition, implying that it could in every other respect remain the same society. The switch from plutocracy to democracy is a revolutionary transformation, certainly requiring the forcible removal of power from those accustomed to hoarding it within their class. Granted, this particular book, due to who I imagine your intended audience to be, may not be ready to confront this reality, so maybe it's best to pique their interest before explaining the true obstacles.
Nevertheless, I hope you understand that this will not come to pass through gradual reforms. The capitalists will never allow it, unless they are able to craft processes around it that will ensure that real power remains in their hands and that their wealth will not be endangered.
This is the first selection I've read. My initial response is that it's clear and engaging. I am now thinking about how a transition from election to sortition (or some inclusion of sortition) could occur.
It's not a topic in which I have any expertise, but if it's helpful to have the non-expert view, I'll offer that.
One comment on grammar: I thought it might be easier to read/understand if there were quotes around the modifiers in this sentence: Sometimes a modifier is attached, such as representative, developed, liberal, or western, but it also often appears without any qualifying adjective.
Yes, it’s most effective to make changes in political systems like life works — slowly replace the system with new building blocks such that the system doesn’t even feel the change. Most people I talk to about sortition and citizen assemblies can’t fathom a complete change like that, so I agree with your assessment of how to go forward.
"it is hard to imagine a society advancing to sortition without maintaining a parallel system of elections for a substantial time"
I would say it is a political mirage to believe a society can "advance" to sortition, implying that it could in every other respect remain the same society. The switch from plutocracy to democracy is a revolutionary transformation, certainly requiring the forcible removal of power from those accustomed to hoarding it within their class. Granted, this particular book, due to who I imagine your intended audience to be, may not be ready to confront this reality, so maybe it's best to pique their interest before explaining the true obstacles.
Nevertheless, I hope you understand that this will not come to pass through gradual reforms. The capitalists will never allow it, unless they are able to craft processes around it that will ensure that real power remains in their hands and that their wealth will not be endangered.
This is the first selection I've read. My initial response is that it's clear and engaging. I am now thinking about how a transition from election to sortition (or some inclusion of sortition) could occur.
It's not a topic in which I have any expertise, but if it's helpful to have the non-expert view, I'll offer that.
One comment on grammar: I thought it might be easier to read/understand if there were quotes around the modifiers in this sentence: Sometimes a modifier is attached, such as representative, developed, liberal, or western, but it also often appears without any qualifying adjective.
The compound adjective “one for one” in the first sentence should be hyphenated 🧐
Yes, it’s most effective to make changes in political systems like life works — slowly replace the system with new building blocks such that the system doesn’t even feel the change. Most people I talk to about sortition and citizen assemblies can’t fathom a complete change like that, so I agree with your assessment of how to go forward.