Terry - I am enjoying immensely the reading of your book. It has been very thought provoking. I appreciate that it comes to me in bite sized pieces! Don
I agree with most of what you say about the chief executive/leader/president. It would be hard to convince Americans that the president should lose power, not be elected, and/or serve a ceremonial role, but I believe you’re right that the current setup here in the US is not tenable. I don’t know why “government” usually means the executive branch. Seems to me that the legislative branch should be the biggest one.
"A successful democracy requires a chief executive who is fundamentally an honest, competent administrator, more akin to a recruited city manager than an elected mayor."
Requires? Why is a chief executive needed at all? If the executive aspects of the government are to simply carry out and enforce the will of the populace as expressed by the legislature, what would be the drawbacks of a plural executive also selected by sortition?
A plural executive is certainly an option, but there are several difficulties with using sortition. A random sample only has a good chance of being representative when it is quite large (way to big for an executive probably). So, you can't risk drawing an executive panel randomly. Secondly, the skill sets for an executive are indeed specific, with a very different task than deciding "what we want" for legislative policy making. Thirdly, if we tried using sortition to select a plural executive team from a pre-qualified pool of people with the necessary skills... WHO decides what those skills are and does the qualifying? Sortition CAN be used to form a large body that will recruit and hire an executive (team or individual), with subsequent panels reviewing performance, with authority to fire executives.
What is "way too big for an executive"? and why is any number "too big"? The larger number will contribute to protecting the public from any individual having too much authority and making bad decisions, whether through vice or ignorance. I've certainly heard people argue than an executive needs to be able to make quick decisions in an emergency as the primary rationale for a small (especially a unitary) executive, but in those situations, is it not even more important that the resultant decision is a good one, which is made more likely through some degree of deliberation and the ability for some to check the potential for others to rashly make a poor decision? Would not all (or at least a quorum) of the executive, however large, act with similar haste as an individual or small group if the need arises?
Additionally, there has been no skill set requirement for elected executives in presidential or parliamentary systems aside from the same traits required to win elections and/or be the most popular elected politician in your party, yet only those of us concerned about real democracy seem to object to those models. So what is the "specific skill set for an executive"? Certainly sortition *could* be used to select a body to interview and hire an executive, but what advantage does that really have over an executive council of ~100 people selected by lottery?
You raise good points, and I confess to not having put much effort into thinking about the executive function (I am a former legislator), thus may have thoughtlessly accepted the assertions of others. But those assertions may be handed down beliefs arising from monarchy and the Roman Empire. Athens had no central executive, other than a huge array of ten-member, randomly selected panels of magistrates each responsible for a particular policy area. Athens would also randomly rotate one member of the Council of 500 to be nominal head of state, each for a single day, so there was somebody who could receive visiting dignitaries, etc. BUT... pushing back, I think of a city manager needs specific skills, to coordinate many different departments to make sure they aren't working at cross purposes, and hold department heads accountable (hire and fire). I guess I just haven't seen examples of a collective executive body in action so am uncertain if it would work well (while the city manager model is proven in my mind). ULTIMATELY, the design of the executive should be determined by sortition bodies involved with statutes and constitutions. You've convinced me to back off my earlier statement, but I'm not ready to advocate a collective executive... It is something worthy of a trials though.
I tried to reply to one of your emails with the following, but I'm not sure if it was sent to an actual email inbox:
I've just started a new podcast (which I've been planning for a while) based on my hypothesis that the only way we'll ever achieve "real democracy" is through recognizing the interdependence of, and thus combining, sortition/demarchy with communist theory and practice. The podcast is called simply Demarchic Communism. Although your work has a more liberal focus, it seems to be a great source for demonstrating both the inherent bugs of electoralism and the advantages of (and I assume - as we wait for the remaining chapters - also for countering some of the key objections to) democracy by lottery, all of which are among the key points needed to make the case for the demarchic pathway to communism. Therefore, I'd like to boost your latest book on my podcast, although to be completely transparent, I would also be adding my commentary in accord with my communist orientation, so that will sometimes be opposing, or at least questioning, what may come across to me as liberal-bourgeois ideology and/or appeals to it.
Since you are making it available for free on your Substack, I'm hoping you might not mind if I were to re-publish the audio clips as part of the podcast before adding my own commentary. If you do not object, I'd like to request the audio clips so I can load them directly into my audio file so there won't be any added noise produced by recording them from my computer through a microphone.
Yes, I can share the Google Drive where I have collected the audio files. I will just want you to be sure to prominently provide a link to the Substack Archive directly (so people can subscribe, and i can collect their email addresses for when I print the book. Send your email address to me at terrybour@gmail.com and I will do the share.
As to the avoidance of left/right class and wealth analysis in the book... My thinking is that almost all people who pay attention agree that politics as it exists is horrible (regardless of their ideology). Further... we all tend to believe that if we could get a group of ordinary people together in a room and we could just explain our political views and give them the facts, most people would agree with us. This bias applies to me, to you, libertarians, Trump supporters, et al. (though not politicians nor lobbyists) In other words, people of all stripes can be brought to endorse sortition... so I choose to leave my own political ideology out of it by and large.
I fully understand the rationale for avoiding the "ordinary" politics angle, and I think it's vital that you and others are contributing in that way. I think the angle I'm taking is more to bring in people on the far left who are already so turned off to mainstream politics that they may never encounter this line of thought (but also, because I think the pathway to success in actually implementing sortition in a way that isn't co-opted by the ruling class as an additional way to placate the populace without changing the bottom line in terms of the locus of power will necessitate a complete structural transformation).
Additionally, Hitler was never elected. He was appointed chancellor by President Hindenburg, which was possible due to an extremely anti-democratic loophole in the Weimar constitution, after no party had been able to form a majority coalition government. So, yes, in some sense it was a result of the particular electoral system in place, but it is somewhat misleading to suggest he "rose to power through free and fair elections."
Terry - I am enjoying immensely the reading of your book. It has been very thought provoking. I appreciate that it comes to me in bite sized pieces! Don
Last paragraph, I think it should be “Much of the criticism…” and not “Much to the criticism…”.
I agree with most of what you say about the chief executive/leader/president. It would be hard to convince Americans that the president should lose power, not be elected, and/or serve a ceremonial role, but I believe you’re right that the current setup here in the US is not tenable. I don’t know why “government” usually means the executive branch. Seems to me that the legislative branch should be the biggest one.
"A successful democracy requires a chief executive who is fundamentally an honest, competent administrator, more akin to a recruited city manager than an elected mayor."
Requires? Why is a chief executive needed at all? If the executive aspects of the government are to simply carry out and enforce the will of the populace as expressed by the legislature, what would be the drawbacks of a plural executive also selected by sortition?
A plural executive is certainly an option, but there are several difficulties with using sortition. A random sample only has a good chance of being representative when it is quite large (way to big for an executive probably). So, you can't risk drawing an executive panel randomly. Secondly, the skill sets for an executive are indeed specific, with a very different task than deciding "what we want" for legislative policy making. Thirdly, if we tried using sortition to select a plural executive team from a pre-qualified pool of people with the necessary skills... WHO decides what those skills are and does the qualifying? Sortition CAN be used to form a large body that will recruit and hire an executive (team or individual), with subsequent panels reviewing performance, with authority to fire executives.
What is "way too big for an executive"? and why is any number "too big"? The larger number will contribute to protecting the public from any individual having too much authority and making bad decisions, whether through vice or ignorance. I've certainly heard people argue than an executive needs to be able to make quick decisions in an emergency as the primary rationale for a small (especially a unitary) executive, but in those situations, is it not even more important that the resultant decision is a good one, which is made more likely through some degree of deliberation and the ability for some to check the potential for others to rashly make a poor decision? Would not all (or at least a quorum) of the executive, however large, act with similar haste as an individual or small group if the need arises?
Additionally, there has been no skill set requirement for elected executives in presidential or parliamentary systems aside from the same traits required to win elections and/or be the most popular elected politician in your party, yet only those of us concerned about real democracy seem to object to those models. So what is the "specific skill set for an executive"? Certainly sortition *could* be used to select a body to interview and hire an executive, but what advantage does that really have over an executive council of ~100 people selected by lottery?
You raise good points, and I confess to not having put much effort into thinking about the executive function (I am a former legislator), thus may have thoughtlessly accepted the assertions of others. But those assertions may be handed down beliefs arising from monarchy and the Roman Empire. Athens had no central executive, other than a huge array of ten-member, randomly selected panels of magistrates each responsible for a particular policy area. Athens would also randomly rotate one member of the Council of 500 to be nominal head of state, each for a single day, so there was somebody who could receive visiting dignitaries, etc. BUT... pushing back, I think of a city manager needs specific skills, to coordinate many different departments to make sure they aren't working at cross purposes, and hold department heads accountable (hire and fire). I guess I just haven't seen examples of a collective executive body in action so am uncertain if it would work well (while the city manager model is proven in my mind). ULTIMATELY, the design of the executive should be determined by sortition bodies involved with statutes and constitutions. You've convinced me to back off my earlier statement, but I'm not ready to advocate a collective executive... It is something worthy of a trials though.
I tried to reply to one of your emails with the following, but I'm not sure if it was sent to an actual email inbox:
I've just started a new podcast (which I've been planning for a while) based on my hypothesis that the only way we'll ever achieve "real democracy" is through recognizing the interdependence of, and thus combining, sortition/demarchy with communist theory and practice. The podcast is called simply Demarchic Communism. Although your work has a more liberal focus, it seems to be a great source for demonstrating both the inherent bugs of electoralism and the advantages of (and I assume - as we wait for the remaining chapters - also for countering some of the key objections to) democracy by lottery, all of which are among the key points needed to make the case for the demarchic pathway to communism. Therefore, I'd like to boost your latest book on my podcast, although to be completely transparent, I would also be adding my commentary in accord with my communist orientation, so that will sometimes be opposing, or at least questioning, what may come across to me as liberal-bourgeois ideology and/or appeals to it.
Since you are making it available for free on your Substack, I'm hoping you might not mind if I were to re-publish the audio clips as part of the podcast before adding my own commentary. If you do not object, I'd like to request the audio clips so I can load them directly into my audio file so there won't be any added noise produced by recording them from my computer through a microphone.
Thank you for your consideration of this request,
Sasha Zeramesha
Yes, I can share the Google Drive where I have collected the audio files. I will just want you to be sure to prominently provide a link to the Substack Archive directly (so people can subscribe, and i can collect their email addresses for when I print the book. Send your email address to me at terrybour@gmail.com and I will do the share.
As to the avoidance of left/right class and wealth analysis in the book... My thinking is that almost all people who pay attention agree that politics as it exists is horrible (regardless of their ideology). Further... we all tend to believe that if we could get a group of ordinary people together in a room and we could just explain our political views and give them the facts, most people would agree with us. This bias applies to me, to you, libertarians, Trump supporters, et al. (though not politicians nor lobbyists) In other words, people of all stripes can be brought to endorse sortition... so I choose to leave my own political ideology out of it by and large.
Thank you. I will email you ASAP.
I fully understand the rationale for avoiding the "ordinary" politics angle, and I think it's vital that you and others are contributing in that way. I think the angle I'm taking is more to bring in people on the far left who are already so turned off to mainstream politics that they may never encounter this line of thought (but also, because I think the pathway to success in actually implementing sortition in a way that isn't co-opted by the ruling class as an additional way to placate the populace without changing the bottom line in terms of the locus of power will necessitate a complete structural transformation).
Additionally, Hitler was never elected. He was appointed chancellor by President Hindenburg, which was possible due to an extremely anti-democratic loophole in the Weimar constitution, after no party had been able to form a majority coalition government. So, yes, in some sense it was a result of the particular electoral system in place, but it is somewhat misleading to suggest he "rose to power through free and fair elections."