How America traded systematic improvement for quick wins–and lost both

Re:How America traded systematic improvement for quick wins–... by pentel-0_5 on Tuesday February 11, 2025 @07:46AM (#43012153)

America needs to throw out the entire political system and replace it with sortition because unqualified political appointees are counterproductive by definition. The only way to fix government is slow, thoughtful, and deliberate consultation and reformation rather than arbitrary, agro destruction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How America traded systematic improvement for quick wins–... by krapp on Tuesday February 11, 2025 @08:07AM (#43012309)

But sortition appoints people to political positions through random lottery. By definition it doesn't consider qualifications to be meaningful.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How America traded systematic improvement for quick wins–... by pentel-0_5 on Tuesday February 11, 2025 @09:02AM (#43012808)

Except you made the failure of assumption that it would be of random people exactly like jury duty. I contend that it would be better to pick from a pool of professionals who, as part of their entrance into a professional society, agree also to lend their talents to civic duty for the benefit of all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How America traded systematic improvement for quick wins–... by krapp on Tuesday February 11, 2025 @10:12AM (#43013694)

>I contend that it would be better to pick from a pool of professionals who, as part of their entrance into a professional society, agree also to lend their talents to civic duty for the benefit of all.

We already have a word for those people - politicians.

Why is a random lot better than an election, and having the public at least ostensibly vet the candidates and choose one?

[ Parent | on HN ]