> In sortition, rather than polling the entire populace about complicated issues on which they are likely not well informed, we select a balanced random sample of people from the populace , provide them information, and then allow them to engage each other on the issue. Then we have those people vote.
This is utopian, and fraught with difficulties. Who decides what constitutes balanced? Does anyone elect the deciders? How can a sample be both balanced and random? Through what forum do they engage? How do we ensure a genuine discussion takes place, rather than both sides talking past each other. How do we overcome the problem that the larger the sample, the harder it will be to have a discussion? How do we prevent the media playing a role in influencing the decision making?
The referendum campaign was poorly articulated on the Remain side, and played to people's most base fears on the Leave side. Remain should have known that touting the impact of Brexit on big business would fall on deaf ears with those that feel powerless in their own communities. That's an argument for making better information available during the course of a referendum campaign. Of course, had the Remain campaign won, as it nearly did, no-one would be questioning it, just as they didn't call for an overhaul of democracy in the wake of the (equally disgracefully fought) NO2AV campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Assembly_on_Electo...
Referendums are for very important cases were we suspect politicians are out of touch with ordinary people.
This has been a nagging issue in UK for years and finally they figured it was better to ask the people.
While there may be other downsides of sortition to consider[0], it at least seems to avoid this problem - since each issue is considered by people in isolation, there's no point in trying to make deals, since the next time around someone else will be chosen to vote.
That said, we have XXI century now - why not try and let everyone vote on everything? I think the idea is sometimes called "liquid democracy".
[0] - one downside that comes to mind is a lack of context and inability to form a coherent strategy; it's already one of the biggest problems with democracy, and that would only deepen it
Referendums are a great idea, but I think that the British yes/no vote was way too simple to game. Using hindsight to save the day, given that there appears to be no gameplan for where to go now, maybe the different options should have been explored before putting it to a vote:
* remain in the EU
* leave the EU, remain in the single market
* leave the single market
* leave the single market, destroy the chunnel
At least with a referendum like that, you force the people to have a content-filled opinion, instead of relying just on an empty "no". That also reduces the options for tea-leaf reading by the losing side.
As I see it, the public have voted to Leave, but some of the options for Leave are actually quite appealing, and would even appeal to some pragmatic Remainers (Norway-style EFTA agreement, join Schengen, negotiate trade agreements with the EU from the outside on a common basis with other EFTA countries, allow Eurozone to integrate closer).
By allowing the public to decide not only the decision but the details of the implementation (although I'm sure you weren't 100% serious with the "destroy chunnel" option) you increase the scope for voters to choose the worst one out of sheer spite.
Thinking about that last option some more, maybe it would make sense to put a nuclear option (like "destroy chunnel") on the ballot, to weed out the spiteful votes from the constructive ones. Even if you explain beforehand that the chunnel will never be closed -- some people just need to vent.
Saying that the public are in control of the direction of travel but leaving the experts in charge of the implementation (as long as it doesn't go against the wishes of the public, i.e. politicians can't just choose not to invoke Article 50, but saying they're free to explore constructive EFTA options) seems preferable.
As I see it, it doesn't really matter if we agree that EFTA is the moderate brexit option: the primary focus of the Leave campaign was on freedom of movement, and it was clear (even before the referendum, given the situation with Norway and Switzerland) that freedom of movement is an integral part of the single market treaties -- a point reiterated by Merkel and Tusk over the past few days.
So regardless that you and I may prefer for the Leave side to explore the EFTA route, it isn't in their mandate -- they won on a campaign of curbing free movement. Had the "moderate Brexit" been a separate choice on the ballot, they might have had a mandate to go for that option. But right now, nobody really knows how many of the Leave voters voted against free movement, and how many voted "just" against the EU.
The politicians making the promises may not even be in the government (it tended to be Leave.EU and Farage that focused on immigration, Vote Leave was wary of doing the same and focused on the economy). All politicians can do in a referendum campaign is talk about implied benefits one way or the other.
It's now up to the politicians to work out the best deal for our country. It's going to be a much smoother ride (and much better for the country as a whole) if free movement of people is allowed and we join EFTA than if the government tries to hold firm on that one, for sure.
While those are options that Britain could attempt to pursue if it leaves the EU, they aren't things that Britain can just choose to do. They are things that Britain can try to do after it leaves the EU (but may or may not succeed in, even if it tries.)
In sortition, rather than polling the entire populace about complicated issues on which they are likely not well informed, we select a balanced random sample of people from the populace , provide them information, and then allow them to engage each other on the issue. Then we have those people vote.
This has several advantages:
1. It actually places "faith in a large number of people selected from all social backgrounds" depending on how large your sample, as opposed to letting elected politicians decide, which is the definition of "a small number of people selected from a potentially narrow social background".
2. It solves the problem where a huge number of people end up voting because of gut instinct or misinformation. Consider the passage of Proposition 13 in California which prohibits the raising of property taxes. If you poll the entire population, that referendum is going to win 100 times out of 100, because for most people the gut check decision is "no I don't want my taxes to go up". However, the correct way to consider that proposition is to get an understanding of how property taxes are used, how they are collected, what the procedures are for changing them in the legislature, etc. and then come to a determination. That determination might be "Yes", it might be "No", or it might be "we should not limit increases in property tax rates but instead limit increases to the real value of collected taxes, by accounting for changes in property values". [1]
[1] I'm not proposing that is the right answer, I'm just suggesting that you might arrive at that conclusion if you actually had time to study the issue. Almost by definition, the vast majority of people do not have that time.