You will never be able to legitimize sortition when it elects a candidate that is not the majority-supported candidate. Even when the election is close, we have to elect the majority candidate in order to value our votes equally. If our votes are not going to be valued equally, then I want my vote to count more than yours.
We practice sortition of a nature in criminal juries and the public at large sees jury duty as unpleasant, undesirable, difficult and actively seek to avoid participation - including crafting strategies that help guarantee they'll be removed from consideration.
Jury trials certainly feature "...the provision of balanced information, expert testimony, and oversight by a facilitator...” and yet it's trivial to find situations where a jury manifestly produces wrong or biased decisions, to the point where there is an entire arm of legal study that attempts to determine when it is desirable to seek a jury trial (in order to exploit those common biases) and when one should not.
The problem of participation and public confidence in government isn't solved by ever-more-cleverly designed systems; I suggest this because past replacements that attempted to solve the participation problem never seem to have worked out.
Jury trials are intentionally designed to be chaotic. A 13 person sample guarantees a high probability that one jury will produce a different result compared to another jury.
Moreover, jurors are not selected randomly. The samples are intentionally biased during the selection phase by various tactical machinations by the attorneys.
Finally, the public hates jury duty as a woefully underpaid burden, especially burdensome to the poor and working class. I would recommend any lottocratic body to be well compensated in order to encourage participation. I imagine people would be much happier to serve if they were paid a Senator's salary.
So why aren't people clamoring in record numbers to be elected senator now, then? That is a job that pays a senator's salary for doing lawmaking.
People very much want to delegate political authority in any system they encounter. It's a natural arrangement.
I disagree with your characterization of juries. They are not chaotic, they're carefully assembled by highly motivated (opposing) experts to attempt to eliminate untoward extreme opinions on either side of the range. The bias, if there is one, is towards the center. Any mechanism which permits a bias to the accused is counterbalanced by the exact same power being awarded the prosecution.
Imagine you had to spend 1 million dollars for the chance to obtain a job. That's what trying to be a senator is like.
The reason most people don't want to become senators is because the cost of running a campaign is incredibly high. The cost is so high that it is affordable usually only for the wealthy and expert fundraisers.
In contrast in a lottocratic system, the financial return is positive instead of negative. The allotted pay no cost for the chance.
Simple economics is driving the decision of people away from becoming a Senator.
Using pure statistical reasoning, we easily conclude that yes, juries are going to be chaotic. Small samples of 13 are widely considered inadequate, even if the bias is towards the center.
That's only the case in the United States. Campaigns in Canada are significantly less expensive and there's no meaningful change in the number of people who choose to run for a position.
Juries start as a lottery. I simply don't see how winnowing individuals with expert oversight for jury is less selective or more chaotic than winnowing opinions with expert oversight in this proposal.
? No matter the jurisdiction, campaigning takes time. Normal people must work for a living and don't have the time to campaign. Moreoever, if more people campaigned as you suggest, that would further lower the odds of winning. So now you have a low probability of success and therefore low probability of return on investment. People naturally shy away from unprofitable activities. Campaigning is not fun.
Lottocratic service in contrast would be designed to be profitable.
It worked the same way in Ancient Athens. Why do you think the poor participated in ancient Athenian democracy? For one thing, they were paid to do so.
The assembly sizes I'd favor are in the size of hundreds of people. I'm not sure what you mean by "winnowing".
You will never be able to legitimize sortition when it elects a candidate that is not the majority-supported candidate. Even when the election is close, we have to elect the majority candidate in order to value our votes equally. If our votes are not going to be valued equally, then I want my vote to count more than yours.
We practice sortition of a nature in criminal juries and the public at large sees jury duty as unpleasant, undesirable, difficult and actively seek to avoid participation - including crafting strategies that help guarantee they'll be removed from consideration.
Jury trials certainly feature "...the provision of balanced information, expert testimony, and oversight by a facilitator...” and yet it's trivial to find situations where a jury manifestly produces wrong or biased decisions, to the point where there is an entire arm of legal study that attempts to determine when it is desirable to seek a jury trial (in order to exploit those common biases) and when one should not.
The problem of participation and public confidence in government isn't solved by ever-more-cleverly designed systems; I suggest this because past replacements that attempted to solve the participation problem never seem to have worked out.
Jury trials are intentionally designed to be chaotic. A 13 person sample guarantees a high probability that one jury will produce a different result compared to another jury.
Moreover, jurors are not selected randomly. The samples are intentionally biased during the selection phase by various tactical machinations by the attorneys.
Finally, the public hates jury duty as a woefully underpaid burden, especially burdensome to the poor and working class. I would recommend any lottocratic body to be well compensated in order to encourage participation. I imagine people would be much happier to serve if they were paid a Senator's salary.
So why aren't people clamoring in record numbers to be elected senator now, then? That is a job that pays a senator's salary for doing lawmaking.
People very much want to delegate political authority in any system they encounter. It's a natural arrangement.
I disagree with your characterization of juries. They are not chaotic, they're carefully assembled by highly motivated (opposing) experts to attempt to eliminate untoward extreme opinions on either side of the range. The bias, if there is one, is towards the center. Any mechanism which permits a bias to the accused is counterbalanced by the exact same power being awarded the prosecution.
Imagine you had to spend 1 million dollars for the chance to obtain a job. That's what trying to be a senator is like.
The reason most people don't want to become senators is because the cost of running a campaign is incredibly high. The cost is so high that it is affordable usually only for the wealthy and expert fundraisers.
In contrast in a lottocratic system, the financial return is positive instead of negative. The allotted pay no cost for the chance.
Simple economics is driving the decision of people away from becoming a Senator.
Using pure statistical reasoning, we easily conclude that yes, juries are going to be chaotic. Small samples of 13 are widely considered inadequate, even if the bias is towards the center.
That's only the case in the United States. Campaigns in Canada are significantly less expensive and there's no meaningful change in the number of people who choose to run for a position.
Juries start as a lottery. I simply don't see how winnowing individuals with expert oversight for jury is less selective or more chaotic than winnowing opinions with expert oversight in this proposal.
? No matter the jurisdiction, campaigning takes time. Normal people must work for a living and don't have the time to campaign. Moreoever, if more people campaigned as you suggest, that would further lower the odds of winning. So now you have a low probability of success and therefore low probability of return on investment. People naturally shy away from unprofitable activities. Campaigning is not fun.
Lottocratic service in contrast would be designed to be profitable.
It worked the same way in Ancient Athens. Why do you think the poor participated in ancient Athenian democracy? For one thing, they were paid to do so.
The assembly sizes I'd favor are in the size of hundreds of people. I'm not sure what you mean by "winnowing".