You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Aussiekas comments on Sortition - Hacking Government To Avoid Cognitive Biases And Corruption - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: Aussiekas 06 May 2014 06:10AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (39)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Aussiekas 07 May 2014 10:52:05PM 0 points [-]

Indeed, probably too much in my own head. This was a first attempt at explaining a system I understood and not enough consideration was given.

I could have put those notes at the bottom as post scripts once someone had a half decent understanding of the system. Indeed, I stuffed up between random and regular citizen, they are about the same thing in my mind, as they don't need to have any qualification.

It was a lengthy step I skipped to describe how they were chosen. Basically a person needs to be within the normal range for intelligence to be an Regular/Random Citizen selected for any level of government. Going into a thousand and one possibilities about what that means seems silly. This is a draft based around my wanted to explore sortition, not a ready to go system which is meant to be adopted.

Same goes for experts. They will be either leaders of industry or PhD's in their field. All related disciplines for a given field will register upon completion of a PhD. Take for instance agriculture. Scientists from various fields from food policy to soil science to agricultural ecology would be put into the pool of candidates available for expert selection.

I think the short term sub-committes who write laws are more akin to juries in terms of the time they serve. Others are more like being drafted into military service at the higher levels. Unlike an actual draft where huge percentages of the population are effected, this is only a few thousand people, many of whom would probably earn more money working in the legislative. Those who wouldn't earn more...well there is some price to living in a democracy, I never said personal interest or pure capitalism at the expense of freedom was a good idea or a huge part of this proposed system. Just like in military service, job positions will be held for the person while they serve.

They are paid, they cannot refuse to serve unless they can show extreme hardship to their interests. The highest level who vote on laws stay where they are, but get staff. They'd rent out an office for three years and have some helpers, just like congresspeople in the US right now have staff.

Comment author: ChristianKl 08 May 2014 01:06:25AM 1 point [-]

Same goes for experts. They will be either leaders of industry or PhD's in their field. All related disciplines for a given field will register upon completion of a PhD. Take for instance agriculture. Scientists from various fields from food policy to soil science to agricultural ecology would be put into the pool of candidates available for expert selection.

Many leaders of industry don't have PhD's. What's the process which you want to use to select them?

Why shouldn't a clever politics professor simply hand out 1,000,000 PhD's to people who share similar politics as himself to get people into your expert commision?

Comment author: ChristianKl 08 May 2014 01:06:59AM 0 points [-]

They are paid, they cannot refuse to serve unless they can show extreme hardship to their interests.

Who has the power to evaluate the request and make the decision whether something is a hardship?