From Campbell Wallace, Redon, France
“Dave Levitan and Alice Klein rightly deplore politicians such as Donald Trump and Malcolm Turnbull, who disregard scientific evidence in favour of policies chosen for short-term electoral advantage or to further special interests. But the problem is a consequence of the electoral system itself, which repeatedly brings to power people unfit to use it.
“Since the 18th century we have assumed that elections are both necessary and sufficient for democracy, and that without them tyranny results. Yet the Greeks of Aristotle’s day knew that elections could lead to oligarchy, not democracy, and that a democratic alternative existed.
“Athenian democracy selected decision-makers by lot to get a statistically representative sample of the whole community: this is called “sortition”. It is perfectly feasible to design a system with the means to ensure that those chosen are well informed on each issue that comes before them.
“Sortition would end the reign of big money, greatly reduce corruption and allow intelligent decisions, taking into account the interests of all. It’s high time we abandoned the myth that elections equal democracy”.(published in The Week)
At the moment we have politicians beholden to somebody, usually rich somebodies, for their election, owing to the huge expense in America of simply getting yourself known to the public, name recognition being essential. In Britain the principal funders of the political parties have to kow-tow to their big funders, whether individuals or unions. It is no way to to maintain a democracy, and sure enough, we get the governments we deserve. On top of this we have constituencies that are gerrymandered or arranged in such a way to ensure a right- wing outcome, and legislators whose education, general knowledge and intelligence is often questionable. Then there is the lopsided bias in the media (in the U.K). Last night we walked psst a late-night convenience store with all the national papers displayed in full view. Most had anti-Corbyn headlines, despite the apparent public sentiment that appears to be running in an anti-May direction. The system is rotten and sortition seems an intelligent answer. Pray for it, but don’t expect it anytime soon!
The BBC sebsite this morning carries the following news item:
“Consumers spent less at the shops last month as they felt “the pinch” from rising inflation and weak wage growth, the British Retail Consortium has said. In the month to the end of May, sales in shops fell by 4.4%, the sharpest fall in four and a half years. The BRC, which monitors sales with the accountancy firm KPMG, said the decline was “striking”.
Separately, Barclaycard said that the level of consumer confidence in the UK was at its lowest for two years.
After a relatively healthy month in April, retailers have been “brought back down to earth with a thump. With inflation continuing to rise and wage growth stagnating, consumers are starting to feel the pinch.”
The expected crunch is starting to happen. A falling pound is creating inflation, and this is likely to continue, caused entirely by the Brexit vote. No wonder May wanted a quick election before the results of the Brexit vote became too obvious. The outcome will be known in a matter of hours, and could involve a significant reduction in the Conservative majority, making Brexit even more difficult to negotiate than it is at present. A clueless government could be a diminished one in all respects. At least we know they are god at cutting everything in soght! But not good for the country.
You’re right to point out that the sortition process would result in more descriptively representative politicians than our current system. The Athenian sortition process didn’t produce what we would regard as descriptive representation because only landowning males were eligible for the ballot. But the randomness of sortition was designed to prevent power-hungry egomaniacs and demagogues from attaining power. In the modern age, it would remove any possible bias the electorate may have on the basis of gender, ethnicity or religion.
But I still think that the ideology of the candidate should still play a significant role in the electorate’s decision-making. Let’s say that voting Democrat, in a sortition system in America, would result in a random Democrat candidate being chosen as your representative. If you are someone with socialist views, you may be aggrieved to find that the random Democrat selected was a moderate. Before deciding whether to vote Democrat or third party, you may want to know the views of the individual Democrat in question, something which sortition could prevent.
I completely agree with you on British media bias. But I have good news. The right wing tabloids have declining circulations. The British people, particularly the young, are increasingly turning to the internet for their news; the internet has a far greater range of insights than the print media. There are downsides to using the internet for news: media revenues are in decline, the quality of journalism can be scandalously poor, and there is a proliferation of ‘fake news.’ But a definite upside is that the hegemony of the low-information, nationalistic tabloids is coming to a close.
On a final point about the election, you’re right about an increase in anti-May sentiment. But I suspect it will be too little too late. All of the fundamentals favour the Conservatives: May is still preferred to Corbyn, the Conservatives are more trusted on the economy and national security, and they have led in every opinion poll conducted since the campaign began, however narrowly. Labour are increasingly reliant on young and casual voters, who cannot be relied upon to vote. I am predicting a Tory majority of between 75-100 seats. A large part of me hopes I’m wrong, but I’m so despondent about the state of British politics generally, that I will be pretty upset regardless of the outcome. On Monday I gave my highly tentative support to Labour, simply because their policies are the most reformist. I still have many reservations about their socialist policies. I share Robert’s loathing of corporate greed and the stresses of modern business life, but I’m also sceptical of the effectiveness of state intervention, particularly in a country where government expenditure is already very high. Initially, Labour’s promise to increase public spending and borrowing would result in higher growth, due to the fiscal multiplier effect and the marginal propensity to consume. But ultimately I’d much prefer a growing economy based on a thriving private sector, a leaner public sector and a balanced budget- something which no party seems capable of delivering.