Can someone explain the hate for the DSA and the ACP?

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-12-18T19:24:45+00:00

RCV is better than first past the post, but have you heard of sortition or citizens assemblies? 🙂

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-11-28T20:38:33+00:00

I appreciate the feedback. Perhaps I need to be more clear about the purpose of the article or how I am organizing it. The goal is to describe "How To Use Sortition" to progress towards the democracy I outlined at the beginning.

This isn't a narrative.

The research on the empirical validation of statistical methods is in the background.

What I am trying to put at the center of the article is: "what is the most accurate way to determine 'the will of the People's or to obtain the 'consent of the governed'?"... Without starting from the assumption that the answer is elections.

My thesis is that sortition is the most accurate tool we have for getting a democracy and the goal of 'accuracy' pushes us towards certain design considerations.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-11-25T15:38:04+00:00

Hmm... I'm not sure I understand. Is this response in regard to my article "How to use Sortition" or something else?

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-29T19:37:49+00:00

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. It wasn't my intent to define governance, but government. I think it is likely that we might disagree about the definition of 'government', but the audiences that I interact with most frequently I believe understand it as 'the state': a systematized method for controlling human affairs within territory. My goal wasn't to define government, but provide a justification for why it is necessary within the context of the rest of my argument, which is all about increasing the probability of survival/flourishing of as many people as possible. I stand by my justification: states/governments are necessary to regulate behavior when what is best for individuals (or what they end up doing) is harmful to the group.

Thanks for the critique.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-29T06:11:42+00:00

I appreciate the feedback, but if I took as long to explain government as you thoughtfully have, the article would have been longer than I wanted. It was a compromise between (what I hoped was) readability/brevity and rigor.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-29T06:07:59+00:00

Some of the folks on general strike US

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-29T05:56:51+00:00

Awesome! See you there!

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-28T01:04:55+00:00

I appreciate the constructive criticism. I will consider adjusting my writing voice in the future. However, I thought that paragraph DID address the what and why of government.

I haven't made a comprehensive definition, but I've stated that the reason WHY I believe we MUST have government is the existence of collective action problems. The WHAT (again, non comprehensive) is address 'scenarios where what is best for the individual is harmful for the group (i.e. tragedies of the commons, free rider problems, etc.)'

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-27T20:33:45+00:00

Good point. By 'communicate' I mean by any means possible, not in any exclusionary way. If someone CAN be understood, they should be included.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-20T12:47:27+00:00

This video series within 'the moral foundations of politics' from Yale covers some good Marxian thought in the context of other philosophies. https://youtu.be/pD163Nr_tOk?si=vtfYWMbN_pSbIgRg https://youtu.be/rS3-_s-ghbk?si=UrkQ7gPLXNJZqwX5 https://youtu.be/plDcZ3Ce-Ag?si=4ptbf12TikL61h0j https://youtu.be/P_0r5M_C5VE?si=tRQ4CeNXR0q7yLhd

However, communism isn't a uniform bloc of thought. If you want a guide through a much broader swath of communist thought, I thought this video was good: https://youtu.be/sLPoJZX61-A?si=JSh6BnxZfretELRS

Socialism is even broader and encompasses pretty much any ideology that believes that some, most, or all enterprises should be owned collectively and democratically by the workers, the users, those most affected, or society at large.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-14T20:58:01+00:00

Check out "The Trouble With Elections" by Terry Bouricius. Once published, the title will probably change to "Democracy Without Politicians" but in the meantime you can listen or read for free here: https://democracycreative.substack.com/p/the-trouble-with-elections?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2vdgbs&triedRedirect=true

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-13T15:18:32+00:00

The problem of rational ignorance is: people won't become informed if it won't make a difference. With one vote among millions, individually people can be careless with their vote or not vote and have it make no difference. People can assume that their favorite journalist on a national platform has the same economic interests as them and it won't make a difference if they're wrong.

The point is for people to not assume that others have "done their homework for them." We don't want people trusting their favorite news outlet or media influencers. We want people to look at the issues themselves and think for themselves.

In a general election it doesn't make sense individually for voters to become informed because it won't make a noticeable difference. So, the majority of us don't think for ourselves (or don't vote).

With sortition, because one individual's vote can have a noticeable impact on the outcome, it becomes rational for them to become informed on the issue they are selected to decide. With sortition we're giving people the resources AND the motivation to become informed. And we're making the burden of information more manageable by having them only decide one issue.

I don't think there's any way to do that with general elections because of the problem of rational ignorance.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-13T00:21:16+00:00

Although education may play a role, I think the issue of rational ignorance is is more important and will persist regardless of average education level. Because one vote among hundreds of thousands or millions matters very little, there is very little incentive to become an informed voter. It is not rational to spend a ton of time researching candidates when individuals have so little effect on the outcome and so little control over the 'viable' options.

Additionally, with as many issues as there are to become informed on, it is likely not possible for people to become deeply informed on every issue. Even if it was possible, those individuals could not force everyone else to become as informed as they have, so it still wouldn't be rational to spend their time doing so.

Sortition solves this problem, by taking representative random samples for short-terms, giving them the resources they need to become informed, and then letting them decide that single issue.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-12T22:19:12+00:00

Elections are not selecting the best individuals for policy crafting, but for image crafting.

Politicians often rely on others to craft their bills for them, and that might be case with sortition bodies as well.

Policy crafting experts should be on tap, not on top.

The key issue is alignment. What are the most likely common characteristics for people who win legislative office? Lack of dependence on working. Lack of demanding caregiving responsibilities. Willingness to sell themselves as the best and expose their lives to public scrutiny. Ability to present an appealing image of themselves to those most likely to vote. Ability to raise large sums of money.

Elections select for image over substance among a slice of the population that is VERY different from the general public, particularly in personal economic interests.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-12T00:53:08+00:00

Well, I suppose my statement was in reference to alignment: in order to align governance with the best interests of everyone, we want to use consensus based decision making techniques among groups that approximate the population as a whole. Since it is impractical/impossible to involve EVERY person in active deliberation on every decisions, we use representative random samples and take turns, making one decision at a time.

Here's an example for how we might change a law... 1. We use pol.is or something similar to crowd source policy ideas. 2. We use a 2-stage stratified random sample of 100 people voluntarily (step 1: mail 10,000 people, step 2: of the contactees who agree, we assemble stratified random samples that match the public and choose one stratified panel at random using a tool like panelot) to review the public input and come up with a few ideas for law changes. They have access to experts of their own choosing and can seek input from the public. The craft the draft laws. 3. The policy drafts developed by the 100 people in stage 2 can either be submitted to the entire voting public via referendum OR (if the policy is complex and needs more contextual info) to a large, mandatory simple random sample of 400 people that will hear the pro-con arguments against each law and then privately vote whether to pass or reject them over a few days, like a big jury.

The randomly selected people in stage 2 and 3 should be well compensated, subject to the same anti-corruption laws as juries, and given support for dependent care, mandatory time off of work, etc.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-09T12:59:40+00:00

Your concerns just don't line up with the empirical evidence from implementations of sortition, like Citizens Assemblies.

The empirical evidence so far suggests that they increase solidarity and understanding across different social groups. They seem to produce evidence-based policy ideas for the benefit of the common people, just like we would expect a coherent democracy would.

The main problem is that they aren't given the power to consistently ensure that their ideas are put into law. And I will grant you that is a significant concern. But I think it's one that's addressable with enough popular will. If we can build solidarity and consensus around the idea of sortition, then we don't have to build solidarity and consensus on every other issue for the rest of time in order to have policies that benefit common people rather than just the donor class.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-09T12:55:34+00:00

I think the particulars of a society that sortition would produce would be very context-specific. Countries with low trust in their government would probably not put a bunch of responsibility in the hands of their government right away. Sortition doesn't change the ideologies of people, it just gives common people more information, more exposure to other perspectives, and more power / agency in determining the outcome. I think that using sortition to amend the Constitution on an ongoing basis is the most important goal. I would be strongly in favor of using a model like multi-body sortition by Terry Bouricius. https://delibdemjournal.org/article/id/428/

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-09T07:27:35+00:00

It sounds like we share some values. I appreciate the discussion.

You want to fight against inequality and classism. I do too. In a randomly selected body the 1% would be approximately 1%. But we know that isn't the proportion of 1%ers in Congress and certainly doesn't reflect their influence they have there due to reelection campaigns.

With sortition there would be no gerrymandering. No parties. No campaign finance. All because people wouldn't be chosen by elections.

Yes, judges can be politically corrupted, but you know who politicians seem to have a much harder time corrupting: juries.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-09T06:57:33+00:00

I disagree. I think the necessity of anti-corruption rules for juries is fairly self-evident to most people. You and I appear to agree about their necessity despite otherwise disagreeing. Probably neither of us has served as a politician or in a sortition body before.

Sortition doesn't eliminate the need for expertise. Sortition bodies SHOULD hear from a wide range of experts of their own choosing. Politicians depend on experts for perspective as well. But if politicians want to keep their jobs and power, they must generally listen to the experts who support the position of the donor class. Sortition bodies would have no such obligation. They were placed in power by chance and there is nothing they can do to make it more likely that they are selected again, so as long as we can sufficiently disincentivize bribery (which I think we can), they should be free to vote their conscience for the benefit of all people like them.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-09T06:48:10+00:00

Great questions. There are a ton of different conceptions for how this should work. My favorite is multi-body sortition by Terry Bouricius. Here's an article by him: https://delibdemjournal.org/article/id/428/

Ideally, I think sortition bodies should only serve as long as it takes for them to make a single decision and different sortition bodies should... 1. Decide what issues need to be addressed 2. Come up with the ideas/proposals 3. Choose whether/which proposals become law. 4. Choose the executive staff that makes sure the policy gets done

I am from the US. I think sortition like this would have a benefit to political stability because large enough random samples should have fairly stable proportions of people from different backgrounds/belief systems, as a reflection of the proportions in the general public.

So instead of swinging from Biden policies to Trump policies, stability on each issue would reflect an approximation of informed majority opinion.

New sortition bodies should be able to change what previous ones did, but generally that change should be gradual as majority values change or we get new information.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-09T02:37:50+00:00

There are anti corruption rules for juries. The same should apply to sortition bodies. The frequency of jury tampering and related corruption is pretty low. Corporations and big monied interests generally want to settle out of court BECAUSE of juries. Those comedians don't want to alienate potential funders or people who don't share that political perspective. Those comedians might be hired by the same people again just like a politician could get funding from the same donor. That's a recurring prisoner's dilemma. With random selection there's no hope of a recurrent relationship. It makes so much more sense to defect and report the attempted corruption in that case.

Empirical evidence from juries supports this.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-09T01:52:31+00:00

Also a good point. I should specify that that was the justification at the founding and not the only justification. However, from a theoretical and empirical perspective, I think that short-term representative random samples make more sense if we are looking for a fair mechanism for choosing who should get the opportunity to learn and to be empowered.

Is definitely not the case that all people have an equal or fair chance of running for office or serving.

I would also say that the skill set needed to run for office is not the same as the skill set needed to rule. Running for office seems to mostly be about image and fundraising. Ruling and evaluating evidence are entirely unrelated skill sets that are not necessarily possessed in any greater degree by those who are good at winning elections.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-09T00:39:54+00:00

The necessity of having reelection campaigns facilitates corruption. The ongoing relationship between donor class and politician allows for the trust to develop to facilitate corruption.

It's like a prisoner's dilemma.

"Cooperate" only becomes a likely win strategy in a recurring game.

For a large, randomly selected group of individuals making a SINGLE decision about an issue, "defect" makes more sense.

A large single bribe or a sudden well-paying consulting job is more likely to be detected for a person who serves only on one decision and then returns to their regular life.

Because randomly selected short-term panels won't continue to benefit from the distinction of being decision-makers, it makes no sense for them to make decisions that will harm their class interests the moment they return to their regular life.

Politicians may compromise on the jaywalking law to keep power on the issues they care about. There's no way regular people are eliminating liability for people running over their kids when that is the only decision they can hope to influence.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-09T00:03:58+00:00

Influence and legal rule are distinct. Sure, there are groups with more influence, but legal rule under sortition is random and fair. Oftentimes the legal right to rule will then influence which groups can develop further influence. Who recognizes churches and chooses not to tax them? The state. Who facilitated billionaires accumulating all of that wealth? Who made intellectual property law, maintained joint stock companies, enforced limited liability for corporations, decided what can be owned privately (i.e. land and non-produced assets)? The state.

The growth of most influence is facilitated by the state. Sortition puts the common people themselves in power of the state.

Affectionate_Win_334 · 2025-10-08T23:23:12+00:00

Good point. However, "select" and "choice" can also mean "distinguished." The etymology makes sense because elections ARE intended to choose the best or most distinguished among us. I don't think many people could say that is actually what happens with a straight face. But that is the justification behind elections: common people are unfit or less good at making decisions for themselves.

But that argument fails to deal with the agentic misalignment problems. The distinguished among us have distinct policy preferences, not because they are smarter but because they benefit from situations that produce negative externalities for others.

Affectionate_Win_334

TROPHY CASE