The problem with elected politicians is that politics is a career path. By the time you get to the position of being electable, you're likely knee-deep in shady deals, and when you get elected, the pressure only increases.

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

Sortition is based on chance, instead of agreeableness.

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.

I wonder if a referendum constructed in that way would actually make decision making worse.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean with "make decision making worse". Are you suggesting that having the EFTA option explicitly listed might have made even less people choose "remain in EU"? I'd say that in that case, the government has been given a clear mandate on what route to pursue. Right now, I don't think the Leave side has any idea if the public wants the EFTA option, the "own island first" option, or the chunnel option.

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.

I'm saying that if we're agreed that EFTA is the moderate Brexit option, having nuclear options (destroy chunnel) on the ballot means that you effectively give a democratic mandate for the nuclear implementation (which let's face it, will always be appealing to a substantial minority, see Corbyn) and sideline moderate voices.

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.

Given his stance, I find it ironic that you'd equate Corbyn with the nuclear option...

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.

Referendums aren't the same thing as elections - they don't come with a set of manifesto promises or a promised programme of government afterwards beyond carrying out the policy suggested in the Referendum.

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.

> but some of the options for Leave are actually quite appealing ... Norway-style EFTA agreement, join Schengen, negotiate trade agreements with the EU from the outside on a common basis with other EFTA countries

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.)

As far as the EFTA option is concerned at least, EFTA is keen to have Britain return: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/27/the-associated-press-the-late...