• tristynalxander@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I like the idea of adding a lottery option to some sort of ranked choice. I’m perfectly fine electing good politicians, but if a majority of people think they’re corrupt, we should be able to rank a lottery option above them.

    I’m fine with re-running if the chosen person opts out, but I don’t like the opt-in versions. I’m also not fond of some of the statistical biasing some people advocate with the system – a straight lottery where everyone has equal odds. I’d compromise on including felons, but personally I think including them incentivizes rehabilitation.

    I also worry that this effectively gives power to public servants who are not necessarily good people – wasn’t Stalin originally a secretary? I can see every think tank offering up people with their own agendas to work in a new office but having an established office with entrenched interests also seems super dangerous.

    • Artisian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Oh that’s fun. I like this, but you really need that RCV to avoid vote splitting. I wonder if it’s better off as approval? Strategic voting around a sortician option would be very weird.

      Cause RCV for a sotrician option is, statistically, likely to pick a moderate voter who leans towards the thing you dislike. There’s something anti-inductive here.