John, this is the best thing on Sortition I have ever read. And I have been a supporter and reader on the subject for 40 years. Well done. I intend to share this far and wide in my albeit limited circle. I didn't know Arash advocated for a Canadian senate appointed by sortition. I have been a supporter of that concept for those same forty years.
Nice post, I enjoyed it. I am already sold on other electoral reforms, like STV, so it was nice to read about sortition and deliberative democracy, I feel it’s less discussed.
I do worry though that as deliberate democracies with real power to change policy are enacted, the corrupting forces that focus on elected official would exert themselves on the deliberative democracies as well.
For example, who chooses the experts that the people listen to? What about outside influence on these people once they are picked as participants? Still, I remain hopeful
I can describe how for example Arash Abizadeh would arrange things. Abizadeh advocates for a bicameral system with a Canadian sortition Senate and an elected House. In his arrangement, representatives and citizen participants would get together in a committee to choose experts. Two batches of experts would be chosen for the two largest party factions. These two rival batches of experts could then present "both sides" of an argument to the sortition Senate when it comes to deciding on proposals.
I believe Abizadeh (not completely sure, need to reread his paper) advocates for a sort of "firewall" to insulate the sortition assembly from the elected chamber. Rules would be developed so that the two ought never mingle together outside of approved government business.
Really appreciating this substack, John. Looking forward to more terrific articles.
Finally, something I can agree to and support. :)
John, this is the best thing on Sortition I have ever read. And I have been a supporter and reader on the subject for 40 years. Well done. I intend to share this far and wide in my albeit limited circle. I didn't know Arash advocated for a Canadian senate appointed by sortition. I have been a supporter of that concept for those same forty years.
Nice post, I enjoyed it. I am already sold on other electoral reforms, like STV, so it was nice to read about sortition and deliberative democracy, I feel it’s less discussed.
I do worry though that as deliberate democracies with real power to change policy are enacted, the corrupting forces that focus on elected official would exert themselves on the deliberative democracies as well.
For example, who chooses the experts that the people listen to? What about outside influence on these people once they are picked as participants? Still, I remain hopeful
I can describe how for example Arash Abizadeh would arrange things. Abizadeh advocates for a bicameral system with a Canadian sortition Senate and an elected House. In his arrangement, representatives and citizen participants would get together in a committee to choose experts. Two batches of experts would be chosen for the two largest party factions. These two rival batches of experts could then present "both sides" of an argument to the sortition Senate when it comes to deciding on proposals.
I believe Abizadeh (not completely sure, need to reread his paper) advocates for a sort of "firewall" to insulate the sortition assembly from the elected chamber. Rules would be developed so that the two ought never mingle together outside of approved government business.