Bob Richard wrote:
On 11/15/2010 4:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
When majority rules, a 51 percent majority can have their way in
election after election. But what other
possible standard is there for democracy and fairness besides
"majority rule?"
For seats in legislative bodies, proportional representation.
One answer is that every sector of the population ought to have a
chance at being in charge, and that
chance should be in rough proportion to the size of the sector of the
population.
What does "being in charge" mean? If it means "making the rules", see my
response above. If it means "implementing/administering/enforcing the
rules", then I think any form of lottery would lead to chaos and
possibly rebellion during the occasional terms in office of officials
representing small minorities. Sortition is very feasible for specific
kinds of legislative assemblies, specifically those whose purpose is to
propose measures to be voted on in referenda. I don't think it can work
for deciding who gets to run the executive branch.
Do you think sortition could work for a representative legislature? Say
that you fill the democratic/representative chamber by lot, and say that
it's relatively large - 400 or so - that sampling artifacts are rare. If
it vacillates, use rules closer to consensus, either methods like
Forest's or simply raising the majority needed from 50%+1 to 60% or so.
If it does, would it work for a parliament? In such a system, the
sortition-based legislature would select the government.
I agree that using sortition to pick the executive itself wouldn't work,
because the executive is much too small and so the luck of the draw
would have an inordinately large effect.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
