The Walrus article argues that sortition, a system where government officials are chosen by lottery from a pool of eligible citizens, is a superior alternative to elections. It contends that elections inherently favor those with wealth, charisma, and connections, leading to corruption and policies that benefit elites. Sortition, by contrast, would create a truly representative government reflective of the population's diversity and less susceptible to special interests. This system, modeled after ancient Athenian democracy, would empower ordinary citizens, foster deliberation and compromise, and lead to more just and equitable outcomes. While acknowledging potential challenges, the article suggests sortition could revitalize democracy and address its current shortcomings.
Brian Eno envisions a "scenius," a vibrant, decentralized collective intelligence, as the ideal model for cultural and potentially political progress. He contrasts this with the traditional "genius" model, arguing that breakthroughs arise from a fertile environment of interconnected individuals exchanging and building upon each other's ideas rather than from isolated brilliance. Eno believes a scenius fosters continuous, iterative improvement through open participation and cross-pollination, leading to more robust and adaptable solutions than top-down, hierarchical systems. This model, while primarily applied to artistic creation, suggests a potential framework for a more participatory and dynamic democracy.
HN commenters generally agree with Eno's premise that small, diverse groups are better at problem-solving than large, homogenous ones. Several highlight the importance of "scenius," the collective genius of a scene, as crucial for innovation and effective governance. Some express skepticism about scaling such a model to national levels, citing the difficulties of managing larger populations and the potential for manipulation. Others suggest blockchain technology or sortition (random selection) as potential solutions for achieving a more representative democracy. A few discuss the practical limitations and potential downsides of decentralized decision-making, such as slow progress and the risk of excluding important voices. One commenter questions Eno's definition of success, pointing out that different societies may prioritize different values.
India is engaged in a complex struggle to control its narrative surrounding democracy. The article argues that the Indian government, under Narendra Modi's BJP party, is increasingly employing tactics to suppress dissent and control information, including internet shutdowns, legal harassment of journalists and activists, and the promotion of a Hindu nationalist ideology. This pushback against critical voices, both domestic and international, clashes with India's self-portrayal as the world's largest democracy. The piece highlights the government's efforts to shape the narrative through strategic communication and partnerships, while simultaneously undermining institutions seen as potential threats. This raises concerns about the future of democratic values and freedom of expression in India.
Hacker News users discuss India's democratic backsliding, questioning the article's framing and offering varied perspectives. Some argue that the article oversimplifies a complex situation, downplaying historical context and internal political dynamics. Others agree with the author's concerns, pointing to specific instances of democratic erosion, including the targeting of journalists and suppression of dissent. Several commenters also debate the role of external actors and international media in shaping perceptions of Indian democracy, with some suggesting a Western bias. A recurring theme is the challenge of balancing economic development with democratic principles, and whether India's unique circumstances warrant a different evaluation framework. Some comments delve into the complexities of Indian federalism and the interplay between state and central governments. A few users also express skepticism about the reliability of certain sources cited in the article.
Summary of Comments ( 32 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44051162
HN commenters largely criticized the idea of sortition (randomly selecting government officials). Many argued that it wouldn't improve representation or governance, citing the potential for unqualified and unmotivated individuals to be selected. Some pointed out that representative democracy, while flawed, allows for accountability and the selection of individuals based on merit. Others suggested that sortition could be beneficial in specific contexts, like citizen assemblies or juries, but not for running entire governments. A few commenters highlighted the potential for manipulation and corruption even within a lottery system. The lack of engagement or interest in civic duty was also a recurring concern.
The Hacker News post titled "We Should Let a Lottery Decide Our Government (2019)" has generated a number of comments discussing the merits and drawbacks of sortition (randomly selecting government officials).
Several commenters express skepticism about the practicality and potential downsides of a lottery-based government. One commenter argues that randomly selected individuals would lack the necessary experience and expertise to make informed decisions, potentially leading to disastrous outcomes. They suggest that domain expertise is crucial for effective governance and cannot be replaced by random selection. Another commenter raises concerns about the susceptibility of randomly selected officials to manipulation and bribery, highlighting the importance of vetting and accountability mechanisms in any governmental system. The potential for apathy and disengagement among the general populace is also raised, with one commenter questioning whether people would feel represented by individuals chosen at random.
Others are more receptive to the idea, seeing it as a potential solution to issues like political polarization and corruption. One commenter argues that a lottery system could break the cycle of career politicians and special interests dominating government, leading to more representative and responsive governance. They suggest that ordinary citizens, unburdened by political agendas, might bring fresh perspectives and prioritize the common good. Another commenter points out that sortition was used in ancient Athens and could be adapted for modern democracies, potentially incorporating elements of deliberation and citizen assemblies. They mention the example of citizens' assemblies in Ireland as a successful application of sortition in contemporary politics.
Some commenters offer alternative solutions or modifications to the proposed lottery system. One suggests combining sortition with meritocratic selection processes to ensure a balance of representation and expertise. Another proposes a system where randomly selected citizens form deliberative bodies to formulate policy recommendations, which are then voted on by the general public. This approach, they argue, would combine the benefits of sortition with the democratic principle of popular sovereignty.
A few commenters raise more philosophical points about the nature of democracy and representation. One commenter questions the underlying assumption that expertise is essential for good governance, arguing that common sense and ethical judgment might be more important qualities in political leaders. Another discusses the concept of "liquid democracy," where citizens can choose to either vote directly on issues or delegate their voting power to others, as a potential alternative to both representative democracy and sortition.
Overall, the comments on the Hacker News post reflect a diverse range of opinions on the feasibility and desirability of sortition as a method of selecting government officials. While some express serious reservations, others see it as a potential solution to contemporary political challenges, or at least a starting point for rethinking how we govern ourselves.