Why Elect People at All?
Remember the Segway? The self-balancing two-wheeled personal transportation device which was supposed to change everything? All the complex arrangements of gyroscopes and balance sensors could be replaced by a simple and cheap, though unattractive, alternative: adding an out-of-line third wheel to form a stable plane. While I appreciate the engineering work which went into the Segway, why spend so much effort working around the deficiencies introduced by demanding that it only have two wheels? Sometimes the obvious solution is the correct one.
So, from the Segway, let's segue into politics. Why have elections at all? The problems are numerous and the primary benefit of getting the people to identify with the system can be had in other, much simpler and less problematic ways (though many including myself would question categorizing identification with a political system as a benefit). If people are going to make laws, why not have them be representative of the people they're to make laws for? The simple solution is sortition.
So, from the Segway, let's segue into politics. Why have elections at all? The problems are numerous and the primary benefit of getting the people to identify with the system can be had in other, much simpler and less problematic ways (though many including myself would question categorizing identification with a political system as a benefit). If people are going to make laws, why not have them be representative of the people they're to make laws for? The simple solution is sortition.
Representative Democracy
The United States is ostensibly a constitutional representative democracy. The constitutional portion is to prevent the government infringing on what are generally considered rights (even if it doesn't work out that way for the reasons Lysander Spooner pointed out). The representative portion is to allow people with the general welfare of others and society in mind to legislate free from the mob mentality and to devote time to study the issues - to become specialists. The democracy portion is to allow the people to express their consent by holding ultimate power (preferably non-violent) over the state.
All three of these goals have failed to some degree in American politics. I want to focus on the representative goal for this discussion. There are two pertinent definitions of representative which I would like to address
2a : standing or acting for another especially through delegated authority
3 : serving as a typical or characteristic example
The primary process through which democracies enable the people to delegate authority to representatives is elections. This process is fraught with problems and workarounds which I'll address in later sections. I want to start with definition #3. There are general interests and specific interests. Having specific interests are fine so long as they are not enshrined in legislation at the expense of other groups. This is presumably why Rawlsians wouldn't want to limit the field of politicians to members of only one gender, race, occupation, or wealth bracket; specific groups of individuals will often have interests that aren't generally shared by those outside of the group.
If a certain group of individuals with certain common interests which aren't necessarily the general interests are represented far beyond their prevalence in the population at large, then how can the claim of representation of the public's interests be sustained?
All three of these goals have failed to some degree in American politics. I want to focus on the representative goal for this discussion. There are two pertinent definitions of representative which I would like to address
2a : standing or acting for another especially through delegated authority
3 : serving as a typical or characteristic example
The primary process through which democracies enable the people to delegate authority to representatives is elections. This process is fraught with problems and workarounds which I'll address in later sections. I want to start with definition #3. There are general interests and specific interests. Having specific interests are fine so long as they are not enshrined in legislation at the expense of other groups. This is presumably why Rawlsians wouldn't want to limit the field of politicians to members of only one gender, race, occupation, or wealth bracket; specific groups of individuals will often have interests that aren't generally shared by those outside of the group.
If a certain group of individuals with certain common interests which aren't necessarily the general interests are represented far beyond their prevalence in the population at large, then how can the claim of representation of the public's interests be sustained?
Why So Many Lawyers?
I'm not the only one who's noticed that there are a disproportionate amount of politicians who are lawyers. Why is that? Common answers are:
I'm sure there are many more potential answers, but those are the four I want to focus on.
- One who is versed in law has an advantage in making laws over one who doesn't
- Lawyers, on average, make more money than many other professions and campaigning is expensive
- Lawyering typically involves finding ways around things and talking to people, skills which are useful in politics
- Lawyers are likely to know some of the regulators, judges, and state prosecutors as part of their job - or know how to deal with them
I'm sure there are many more potential answers, but those are the four I want to focus on.
Hypothesis 1: Legal Expertise - Knowing the Procedural Game
I believe that the first common answer is technically true but I feel that a lot of how the law works and is created is bullshit. There is too much reliance is given to rulings in the past. There is too much compromise. There is too much process whether or not that process makes sense. Contrast that to my profession of software engineering. Yes, there are established libraries and standards. Yes, there are best practices. Neither of those are for their own sake. The product is what's important. With legislating, the law shouldn't be considered the product; a well-functioning society using those laws should be the product (by whatever metric you use to define well-functioning).
In software engineering, libraries and standards are good until they stop working toward the goal of a product which satisfies the needs of users. There is no single best practice which is optimal in all situations.
Legislative and judicial matters rely far too much on what old, dead people said even if their justifications were faulty or no longer applicable. This is supposedly to build confidence in the institution of law, but I think it's largely laziness. You get people to have confidence in the law by having laws that make sense - laws that one doesn't have to break just to make a living or go about their day. There's too much reliance on "words of art" and seeing what sticks instead of what works. If laws had to pass by logicians or if they had to be compiled by a computer, I'm willing to be most of them would fall flat.
It's likely that I'm being unfair since I'm outside of both the legislative and lawyering professions. Still, I find it absurd to think that scientists and economists can't craft good policy if the point of that policy is to work. They may not honor the process but the process is only important in producing good laws (laws which a well-functioning society would use). I've already addressed arguments about undermining the law by not respecting the long-established traditions. So I dismiss those arguments. What's left? Not screwing people over for exigency? Yeah, that's part of a well-functioning society and part of establishing respect for the law so no problem their either. That's a process with a defined purpose relating to a well-functioning society, not a nod to tradition or compromise or keeping an old boys' club going.
In software engineering, libraries and standards are good until they stop working toward the goal of a product which satisfies the needs of users. There is no single best practice which is optimal in all situations.
Legislative and judicial matters rely far too much on what old, dead people said even if their justifications were faulty or no longer applicable. This is supposedly to build confidence in the institution of law, but I think it's largely laziness. You get people to have confidence in the law by having laws that make sense - laws that one doesn't have to break just to make a living or go about their day. There's too much reliance on "words of art" and seeing what sticks instead of what works. If laws had to pass by logicians or if they had to be compiled by a computer, I'm willing to be most of them would fall flat.
It's likely that I'm being unfair since I'm outside of both the legislative and lawyering professions. Still, I find it absurd to think that scientists and economists can't craft good policy if the point of that policy is to work. They may not honor the process but the process is only important in producing good laws (laws which a well-functioning society would use). I've already addressed arguments about undermining the law by not respecting the long-established traditions. So I dismiss those arguments. What's left? Not screwing people over for exigency? Yeah, that's part of a well-functioning society and part of establishing respect for the law so no problem their either. That's a process with a defined purpose relating to a well-functioning society, not a nod to tradition or compromise or keeping an old boys' club going.
Hypothesis 2: Campaigning is a Rich Person's Game
Who can afford the cost of media exposure necessary to get elected? Either people with a lot of true believers or people with money. How do people get a lot of true believers? With exposure. What's the fastest way to get exposure? Media. How does one get media? Money.
You'll never get money out of politics until you get power out of politics.
I would love every voter to get that quote tattooed on the back of whatever hand they use to fill out ballots.
One of my solutions for the problem of monetary lobbying is localism. It won't get money out of politics entirely, but it will either reduce the influence of it or limit the extent of the damage it causes.
One of my solutions for the problem of monetary lobbying is localism. It won't get money out of politics entirely, but it will either reduce the influence of it or limit the extent of the damage it causes.
|
People become legislators because they either want to make the world a better place (as they define it) or because they want to make their own lives better without regard to others. The latter includes being drawn to power for its own sake.
In both of those cases, the more power an office has the more attractive it is. For the beneficent planner, more power means more ability to effect the policy necessary to bring about their vision of a better society. For the purely self-interested, more power gives more ability to legislate towards one's interests. Presumably, the more power an office has, the more effort one will put into obtaining it. Money is the quickest route because one can leverage the efforts of others and spread a message with mass media. The need to campaign against others who are trying to get power leads to something approximating the positive feedback loop shown on the right. |
|
Campaigning quickly becomes a rich man's game but even the rich may be priced out without corporate assistance. Those who are living paycheck to paycheck can't get on the radar of the public or the corporations (corporations like to bet on horses who are likely to win) and they don't have the time to devote to campaigning if the position doesn't pay well or provide advantages through legislation (leading to a self price-out or making them rich in the process and proving the rule).
The solutions which actually work to break or weaken this feedback loop, unlike campaign contribution and political ad laws, are:
The solutions which actually work to break or weaken this feedback loop, unlike campaign contribution and political ad laws, are:
- Localism - cap power and you cap monetary influence and the number of individuals damaged by bad legislation
- Term limits - get money out of re-election. Keep the corporations guessing instead of betting on incumbents
- More choices - a first-past-the-post system favors two horses in the race. Having more potential winners spreads campaign contributions thinner.
- Eliminate elections altogether - at least at the higher levels - and that's the proposal here
Hypothesis 3: Political Overlap
Both lawyering and legislating, from my outside perspective, appear to involve a lot of bullshit artistry. Finding good-sounding precedents or justifications coupled with lying (primarily for DA's and prosecutors) translate well into what's needed for campaigning. Selling a case to jurors has a lot of overlap with selling a case to voters. There are appeals to traditions, appeals to institutions, carefully choosing wording, packaging up cases under a certain "image."
Hypothesis 4: Good Old Boys
I wish this one wasn't true, but I can't see any way that it's not. When you have district attorneys and prosecutors and judges fucking people over to not hamstring their future political aspirations, that's not justice. When
Random is a Crappy way to Figure Things Out ... Unless it's Better
|
A friend of a friend wrote Anywhere Tomorrow. In the earlier version of the manuscript I reviewed, there was a part of the story where people had to draw straws in a life or death manner. One of the characters pointed out (or thought, I forget) that relying on chance is a stupid way to decide things like that - in certain situations some people are more important than others. Presuming everyone shares the same goals (which, in that case, was survival) I completely agree.
Do politicians share general goals? Sure. Do individuals in positions of power have specific goals which work against the general interests of others? Sure. |
Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair.
|
If power corrupts and government is a necessary evil and it should be under the control of the people, then keeping it representative ensures a more fair shakeout between differing special interests. If politicians spend a lot of their time fighting one another then they'll be too busy to infringe on freedoms. All qualifications that have been proposed for fixing the problems with elections and voter intelligence favor some subset of individuals over others. They all impose values about what's important. The only system I'm aware of which imposes no values is one which has no intelligence - it is chaos, randomness.
What sortition will get you?
MOVE THIS ----vvv
If people generally share the same core values (murder, theft, assault are bad) then it's not like a pro-murder individual is very likely to be selected or, in the rare case they are, likely to be very effective at passing pro-murder legislation (presuming the constitutional aspect of The American Experiment is not an effective check).
What sortition will get you?
- A value-free system of selecting individuals.
- An accurate cross-section of the population (a.k.a a representative sample); there's a reason research firms conduct random sampling. A legislature which cares about specific issues in proportion to how much the general population cares about them.
- No money to get people elected
- No incumbents or political dynasties
- Weaker political parties or political parties that focus on speaking directly with the people like they friggin' should.
- Less of a "my guy" attitude
- Less of a mental distinction between governors and non-governors
MOVE THIS ----vvv
If people generally share the same core values (murder, theft, assault are bad) then it's not like a pro-murder individual is very likely to be selected or, in the rare case they are, likely to be very effective at passing pro-murder legislation (presuming the constitutional aspect of The American Experiment is not an effective check).
Elections Make Use of Mind Hacks
Elections Cause People to Identify with Institutions
The Wikipedia article on sortition lists this as a disadvantage of sortition, but I consider it an advantage if it's true. Why do police and military and other government agents get away with the same sort of things that street gangs don't? I'm not talking about "taxes and regulation are theft" generally, but rather house raids, pet shootings, kangaroo courts which deny evidence to the defense, and regulation which oversteps the boundaries of justice.
If I had to hazard a guess for why one is given legitimacy and the other not, I'd say it's because people erroneously believe that the government represents the people, is under the control of the people, and has the people's general interests at heart. With local governments this belief might be true, but at the national level it's pretty false.
Children are indoctrinated to respect authority and are given false civics lessons in school and people hold onto a romanticized notion of the great American experiment.
I don't mean to be critical of the people doing good work in government, even if bureaucracies tend to become corrupt over time. I'm critical of people giving passes to government that they wouldn't give to any amalgamation of individuals performing the same actions in the name of the social good.
If I had to hazard a guess for why one is given legitimacy and the other not, I'd say it's because people erroneously believe that the government represents the people, is under the control of the people, and has the people's general interests at heart. With local governments this belief might be true, but at the national level it's pretty false.
Children are indoctrinated to respect authority and are given false civics lessons in school and people hold onto a romanticized notion of the great American experiment.
I don't mean to be critical of the people doing good work in government, even if bureaucracies tend to become corrupt over time. I'm critical of people giving passes to government that they wouldn't give to any amalgamation of individuals performing the same actions in the name of the social good.
|
Elections are a primary cause of people giving passes to the institutions of government using the "rock-solid logic" listed to the right. But it goes further than denying people a justification for complaints - it enters The Most Dangerous Superstition territory; people believe in the system itself because it represents the will of people. It's not that they feel bad about complaining or doing something to remedy the existing problems in their lives or those introduced by government - it's that it honestly never occurs to them to do so.
Remove elections entirely and the "well that's the guy the people wanted" mentality disappears. More importantly, the "my guy" mentality either disappears entirely or is drastically reduced. I'd support sortition for this reason alone even if it provided no other benefits. |
|
When people have a "my guy" attitude, they are more likely to overlook abuses of power by their guy. Tolerance of abuse can easily become admiration of abuse. I'm reminded of a story relayed to me that some of Ron Paul's constituents said (paraphrasing) "we don't care about all that freedom stuff, we just want you to bring home the bacon." Admiration of abuse of power is corruption of the citizenry and no society that I'm aware of has pulled out of that tailspin. One of my favorite political philosophers, Henry George, puts it this way:
Even the accidents of hereditary succession or of selection by lot, the plan of some of the ancient republics, may sometimes place the wise and just in power; but in a corrupt democracy the tendency is always to give power to the worst. Honesty and patriotism are weighted, and unscrupulousness commands success. The best gravitate to the bottom, the worst float to the top, and the vile will only be ousted by the viler. While as national character must gradually assimilate to the qualities that win power, and consequently respect, that demoralization of opinion goes on which in the long panorama of history we may see over and over again transmuting races of freemen into races of slaves.
As in England in the last century, when Parliament was but a close corporation of the aristocracy, a corrupt oligarchy clearly fenced off from the masses may exist without much effect on national character, because in that case power is associated in the popular mind with other things than corruption. But where there are no hereditary distinctions, and men are habitually seen to raise themselves by corrupt qualities from the lowest places to wealth and power, tolerance of these qualities finally becomes admiration. A corrupt democratic government must finally corrupt the people, and when a people become corrupt there is no resurrection. The life is gone, only the carcass remains; and it is left but for the plowshares of fate to bury it out of sight.
- Henry George, Progress and Poverty
|
Beyond the corrupting influence, voting satiates a need for power in the masses. Substantive change won't happen by expending 15 minutes of effort every other year. That doesn't make you an involved citizen, it makes you a consumer picking from two carefully-packaged products. But it often removes an impetus for action because solving your own problems, or working in your community, or voting with your dollars is haaaaard. Filling out some ovals with a #2 pencil and stuffing them in a scantron is easy.
|
Rank the above in terms of effectiveness:
|
Elections Tie Money and Politics
Elections Give the Media Political Power
Elections Put Power into a Small Insider Caste
Elections Give Power to Political Parties
Voter Fatigue and Rational Ignorance
What About Meritocracy?
What About Consent of the Governed?
What About Enthusiasm of the Elected?
What About Accountability?
The Biggest Advantage of Sortition
Quote Henry George on corrupting of people
Is sortition "the one true answer?" Of course not - getting power out of politics by either adopting a "limited rule system such as voluntaryism or spreading the power out via localism is much better than the type of rule-maker selection system if one had to choose only one. However, nothing prevents using sortition in voluntary or localized systems.
