Congratulations on getting this book published. It’s an outstanding addition to the field. I quickly read your suggestions of what you might cut and my immediate reaction is that I think the non-governmental uses of sortition/deliberation are very important and should be left in. Government is so resistant to improvement in the U.S. that highlighting a multitude of other uses of sortition and deliberation—and giving real world examples—will widen understanding of its relevance—not to mention to give the book a wider audience.
In general I think the draft is a bit repetitive (there's things you write about at length 3 or more times throughout the draft). I think if you better organize that and combine these instances you'll have far less to cut while still retaining a lot of the substance and making the book flow much better.
But if you do need to make cuts:
I wouldn't cut the history section, I think It's very important and informative.
The rest of the chapters you mentioned can be reduced to notes with reference to the full article online.
Yes, I do unfortunately repeat points several times. That is partly because I wrote the draft over many many years, and sometimes didn't even remember I had already explained X in another chapter. Locating redundant material will be very time-consuming. Do you happen to recall some specific points or themes that I repeat that would accelerate that winnowing process? I wonder if some paid AI service could locate points that are redundant?
You should consider keeping all the sections and instead taking the time to go through the manuscript and say the same things with fewer words. Also combining words (e.g. is not = isn’t, you are = you’re) can be useful in reducing the number of words. Finally there may be sentences or even paragraphs that are not as important and can be removed without losing the overall point and meaning of the section. I think the whole thing is important and no chapters should be removed in full.
exicted about its imminent publishing! good luck with the cuts.
if you were to post more sections to choose from, maybe totaling 60,000 lines and then asked us which 23,000 should be kept and which 37,000 should be gotten rid of, that might be easier.
i do think, though it does seem like a large task, every section could probably be trimmed signifcantly.
Isn’t the role of the publisher to get you an editor and make it work? If not, I would cut back significantly on the first part of the book which talks about how bad elections are. I remember when I was reading it, I was always wanting to get to sortition and citizen assemblies. Summary of the final edition: elections suck, and here’s why sortition and citizen assemblies are better. Alternatively, you could footnote the heck out of it, taking all the quotes and asides out of it, and also taking large chunks out of the main text and putting it on a website that can be linked via footnote from the book.
Are you planning on deleting the serialized Substack version? If not, then you have a ready reference version to link to from footnotes in the book.
"Fears of the Framers" can also be shortened regarding the historical context, lack of trust in and the crisis of democracy is what matters. The "History of Internal Deliberation" can as well be shortened for the same reason, the core point is suffice. I love history very much, but cutting nearly all of it seems to be the right decision to me.
"The psychology of the elected representatives" in chapter 9 does in my eyes also not belong to the (main)core of the case against elections and can for the very least be cut short or even fully taken out.
“the inherent failings of the current competitive electoral system (in terms of fundamental political psychology and lack of representativeness), and why sortition would work better.”
Hi Terry! I've hoped to have a more detailed response, but here's my general take based on your points:
1. the bulk of the history parts - a lot of this can go, but I think it's important to establish the struggle for real democracy having gone on a long time, and that the destination we want is not novel and has been in our sights for centuries (e.g. ancient greece)
2. why commonly proposed election reforms won't work - yes, many readers won't be familiar, and it'll muddle your primary opinion - can be brief mentions in context of the overall psychological and sociological battle inherent in rulemaking
3. the limits of proportional representation reform - yes, I think you can cut a whole lot of this, making these points in context of the overall psychological and sociological battle inherent in rulemaking
4. the limits of participatory reforms (like referendums) - yes, same as points 2 and 3
5. the non-governmental uses of sortition - I would caution against cutting too much here, since you might believe that these use cases are a big part of how we get from here to there, giving people the experience with the model
You're the best, thank you so much and congratulations and good luck!
Also, I'll mention what I think is the most illustrative and elegant phrasing of the core concept in the text - "A key aspect of sortition is that it is not the individual members of the deliberative body who are individually 'representatives.' Each individual has no specific constituency. It is THE BODY AS A WHOLE that REPRESENTS THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE."
I would refer to this phrasing repeatedly, as it's a fundamental switch from our usual thinking about representation.
Congratulations on getting this book published. It’s an outstanding addition to the field. I quickly read your suggestions of what you might cut and my immediate reaction is that I think the non-governmental uses of sortition/deliberation are very important and should be left in. Government is so resistant to improvement in the U.S. that highlighting a multitude of other uses of sortition and deliberation—and giving real world examples—will widen understanding of its relevance—not to mention to give the book a wider audience.
Glad to hear it is being publish - congrats!
I agree with removing chapters 4, 5, 10, and 15. And I agree with truncating the history, but I hope you don't go too far.
Congratulations Terry!
In general I think the draft is a bit repetitive (there's things you write about at length 3 or more times throughout the draft). I think if you better organize that and combine these instances you'll have far less to cut while still retaining a lot of the substance and making the book flow much better.
But if you do need to make cuts:
I wouldn't cut the history section, I think It's very important and informative.
The rest of the chapters you mentioned can be reduced to notes with reference to the full article online.
Yes, I do unfortunately repeat points several times. That is partly because I wrote the draft over many many years, and sometimes didn't even remember I had already explained X in another chapter. Locating redundant material will be very time-consuming. Do you happen to recall some specific points or themes that I repeat that would accelerate that winnowing process? I wonder if some paid AI service could locate points that are redundant?
I agree with your choices for excision.
I suggest being sure to include at those points, one or two of the best references to "Learn more" (or some similar phrase).
You should consider keeping all the sections and instead taking the time to go through the manuscript and say the same things with fewer words. Also combining words (e.g. is not = isn’t, you are = you’re) can be useful in reducing the number of words. Finally there may be sentences or even paragraphs that are not as important and can be removed without losing the overall point and meaning of the section. I think the whole thing is important and no chapters should be removed in full.
exicted about its imminent publishing! good luck with the cuts.
if you were to post more sections to choose from, maybe totaling 60,000 lines and then asked us which 23,000 should be kept and which 37,000 should be gotten rid of, that might be easier.
i do think, though it does seem like a large task, every section could probably be trimmed signifcantly.
I am looking for thoughts about ANY section that could be cut, either in whole or in part. My list was just some of my initial notions.
Isn’t the role of the publisher to get you an editor and make it work? If not, I would cut back significantly on the first part of the book which talks about how bad elections are. I remember when I was reading it, I was always wanting to get to sortition and citizen assemblies. Summary of the final edition: elections suck, and here’s why sortition and citizen assemblies are better. Alternatively, you could footnote the heck out of it, taking all the quotes and asides out of it, and also taking large chunks out of the main text and putting it on a website that can be linked via footnote from the book.
Are you planning on deleting the serialized Substack version? If not, then you have a ready reference version to link to from footnotes in the book.
Congratulation to publishing this amazing work!
"Fears of the Framers" can also be shortened regarding the historical context, lack of trust in and the crisis of democracy is what matters. The "History of Internal Deliberation" can as well be shortened for the same reason, the core point is suffice. I love history very much, but cutting nearly all of it seems to be the right decision to me.
"The psychology of the elected representatives" in chapter 9 does in my eyes also not belong to the (main)core of the case against elections and can for the very least be cut short or even fully taken out.
Late to the party:
I think history has already been discussed sufficiently everywhere else.
“the inherent failings of the current competitive electoral system (in terms of fundamental political psychology and lack of representativeness), and why sortition would work better.”
THIS IS THE ESSENCE.
Hi Terry! I've hoped to have a more detailed response, but here's my general take based on your points:
1. the bulk of the history parts - a lot of this can go, but I think it's important to establish the struggle for real democracy having gone on a long time, and that the destination we want is not novel and has been in our sights for centuries (e.g. ancient greece)
2. why commonly proposed election reforms won't work - yes, many readers won't be familiar, and it'll muddle your primary opinion - can be brief mentions in context of the overall psychological and sociological battle inherent in rulemaking
3. the limits of proportional representation reform - yes, I think you can cut a whole lot of this, making these points in context of the overall psychological and sociological battle inherent in rulemaking
4. the limits of participatory reforms (like referendums) - yes, same as points 2 and 3
5. the non-governmental uses of sortition - I would caution against cutting too much here, since you might believe that these use cases are a big part of how we get from here to there, giving people the experience with the model
You're the best, thank you so much and congratulations and good luck!
Also, I'll mention what I think is the most illustrative and elegant phrasing of the core concept in the text - "A key aspect of sortition is that it is not the individual members of the deliberative body who are individually 'representatives.' Each individual has no specific constituency. It is THE BODY AS A WHOLE that REPRESENTS THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE."
I would refer to this phrasing repeatedly, as it's a fundamental switch from our usual thinking about representation.