Instead of elections, let's use lotteries
aeon.co
aeon.co
Elections != democracy. Elections force us to elect our masters. We elect the people who are supposed to write the rules they have to follow. I mean... come on. A 4th grader would see the paradox in that.
The Republic in Athens was based on the lottery and it lasted literally for centuries.
The Republic in Athens was based on the lottery and it lasted literally for centuries.
Does not appear to be correct. It does appear that a lottery was part of the Assembly/Ekklesia process[0]. Specifically, the Assembly elected the Boule by lottery[1]. The original Boule (established by the statesman Salon[2]) was established in 594 BC. However, the lottery for these positions was not introduced until 508 BC, and initially only allowed for the top 3 "property classes" and only to those over 30. It wasn't until the mid-5th century that all 4 property classes were allowed to attend. Additionally, they were chosen by lot, but only from those who chose (or were able) to attend. This left the poorer citizens out of luck until pay was instituted for these positions[4]. Also, unlike a true lottery, it was still left to "people who want to be in charge" since the lottery was only for those who attended. Then in 322 A.D, Macedony put the kabosh on democracy in Athens. So the lottery was only in place for about 180 years, didn't enitirely replace the existing Areopagus and made up a part of the Ekklesia, and was limited to 400.
I don't really see that as a good basis for the conslusion of "The Republic in Athens was based on the lottery and it lasted literally for centuries.". It was certainly a nice research exercise as I know little about ancient Greek forms of democracy.
[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy "The officials of the democracy were in part elected by the Assembly and in large part chosen by lottery."
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_(ancient_Athens) "The ecclesia elected by lot annually the Boule or council."
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy "In 594 BC Solon is said to have created a boule of 400 to guide the work of the assembly."
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boule_(ancient_Greece)#The_Athe... "Under the reforms of Cleisthenes enacted in 508/507 BC, the boule ... were chosen by lot at the deme level,"
[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boule_(ancient_Greece)#The_Athe... " At some point in the late 5th century, pay was instituted for those serving in the boule; this may have been a way to encourage poorer citizens to volunteer, who would otherwise be reluctant to serve."
"only from those who chose (or were able) to attend." makes perfect sense to restrict the candidates to those interested in politics and the governance of the city.
" the lottery was only for those who attended." Again, those involved in the governance of the city. But was there any way for them to give priority to their name? No, no campaign, no 'communication specialist', no POTUS twitter account.
"So the lottery was only in place for about 180 years" So 2 centuries, what I said.
The thing is the lottery was only one aspect of the athenian republic, how laws were voted, how leaders were held highly accountable were also important corner stones.
There appears to be a lot to like about the Athenian democratic process (again, not an expert). However, your argument about elections vs lotteries literally had only one thing to say about the Athenians which was "The Republic in Athens was based on the lottery and it lasted literally for centuries.". I find this a weak argument specifically because it's not really true (for the reasons stated above). After all, Athens the Republic (as a democratic process after the reforms of Salon, as compared to just Athens the city) was already 86 years old by the time the first lottery was in place. This reduces the power of the first part of the statement ("was based on the lottery"). How could it be based on the lottery if the lottery did not exist at the time the Republic was formed. Then, the lottery only lasted for 186 years (close to, but not quite "centuries"), but that too loses it's effectiveness as an argument because the US (based on elections) is about 227 years old (counting from the first Presidential election).
So in the end, the argument (as presented, and specifically with regards to Athens), was something to the effect of "Elections are worse than the lottery. The Republic of Athens was based on a lottery. The Athenian lottery lasted for centuries. This should strengthen the initial point that lotteries are better than elections.".
However, in analysis, the statement about Athens is not good evidence for that argument because the Athenian Republic was not based on a lottery, and while it did last for nearly 2 centuries, it still lasted for a shorter amount of time than the system the US is currently using.
This could help marginal candidates, since voters wouldn't feel like they're throwing away their votes... any vote COULD win the election.
Elections in the US may be flawed, but there is quite a bit of evidence that other electoral systems -- particularly, ones where the main legislative body isn't elected by FPTP in single-member districts -- work much better at providing meaningful democratic accountability, which is where the article sees the failure of elections.
So, while I accept the conclusions that US elections are flawed, I don't accept the more general claim, or the claim that even US elections can't be redeemed.
Sortition is interesting, and may be useful, and is certainly something that it makes sense to try on a smaller scale. But better election systems are both a less radical change and one more supported as effective in the modern world and conditions by evidence which provides a clear idea of how to structure them.