Essentially the linked Substack lays out an idea for a new approach to utilising sorition to improve politics. Sortition- selecting members of the population at random for political functions- has had some impressive successes- people who participate tend to enjoy it, learn a great deal, and come away enthusiastic advocates for the process. We know that the positions such bodies usually come to are typically thoughtful, compassionate and comprehensive, and that despite huge differences going in, attendees typically are able to come to wide ranging agreements.
Critically, we also have evidence that ordinary people place a fair bit of weight on the results of sortition processes. The public are interested in what the sortition body has to say, because they (rightly) see it as reflective of what they might think of they had the time, resources and deliberative opportunity to talk and think through the issues in depth
The problem is that sortition typically requires permission and support from governments. Our proposal is to convene a permanent, independent body selected from the general population of the United States (or another country) to comment on political and other public matters as they arise, independent of government- to give the public information on what they might think of the issues of the day if they had the time for deep inquiry.
As we put it:
In the ideal case, Government Watch would become a lighthouse for everyone who isn’t involved in politics, and who wants to know what they and their peers might think if they had the time to learn about and discuss the issues in great depth. As Government Watch continues to run for a few years, we hope it will snowball in visibility, becoming an important part of old and new media discourse about politics.
I briefly outline how I think this approach might help in dealing with polarization and could enable constructive approaches to AI policy, Foreign Aid and other matters.
I'd appreciate your readership and commentary :-)
