We've so enjoyed reading this - sortition ideals at its finest - thank you for writing this fantastic piece! Let's just hope this is the direction the world is going in. Another democratic future 'is' possible!
When I started reading I was sure it was stupid. By the end I changed my mind. Sure, maybe some tweaking is in order, but I like putting all the candidates in a place where they can be grilled for days or weeks by normal people with all America watching. Self-selection is interesting too. Can we try this first in a big state?
The "story" itself is so compelling and exciting, just a glimmer of what a true selection process would be like to watch or engage in.
The real beauty of it is that it can't be gamed.
ALTHOUGH, I can think of a couple of weaknesses.
First, the 1000 are vulnerable to coercion as soon as they are selected. They ought to be sequestered for the length of time it takes them to be FBI vetted. Meanwhile, they have sequestered access to the candidate info. Once Vetting is complete, the eliminated selectors are removed, and the remaining can immediate lock in their votes.
Second, I'm concerned about any electronic system for number generation. I'd rather see colored marbles, black and white, in a velvet bag. Witness the empty bag, the counted marbles, and then they come to pick a marble.
Or else, put a hundred numbered balls in a lotto barrel with each person selecting a ball at the moment of their choosing.
I think these more analogue selection options are less easily gamed than any electronic system. But I do appreciate the efficiency of an electronic system.
Third, those 9 selectors returned to the group? I think they ought to be selected and sequestered at this point: "Out of the 907 initial Selectors, 37 Grand Selectors are chosen by lot."
Stick them in an Exile Island wing of the Ranch. They can interract with each other, but are kept from the other groups, and not allowed any more freedoms than the other groups.
This ensures that the 9 Churn Selectors have not been gamed.
This means that ANY possible gaming occurs before the 1000 is selected, and will hopefully be weeded out during the de-gaming process.
Maybe I'm getting mixed up in the details, but you can see where I'm coming from.
I am think that if there is any possible way to game the system, people will find a way to do it.
Unfortunately, there is probably still a lot of darkness ahead before things will get better. It is unlikely that anything like the above will ever be put in place, but dreaming nice dreams probably won't hurt...
This is fascinating. Maybe for the long term, this is the most important work: imagining the rebirth of America, for we are clearly experiencing its death, in so many ways. A truly fresh vision, not reaching for magic wands or tired, failed playbooks . . . this now beckons our best minds. This feels vital, thank you. It's more than a new American Revolution. This needs to be the American Evolution.
Fascinating, I think it really would be an edge-of-the-seat spectator sport! Very different from today, where you are watching, because the person you really hate might beat the person you dislike. Maybe the public would judge the folks based on the one whose positions they really support and agree with? I mean, all they will really have to go on (hopefully) is what the candidates actually "say" during the process.
But overall, in the end, it's still one human being given all too much power. I'd prefer a solution where perhaps the last 50 form a committee? Or would that just end up in deadlock all the time?
Sortition is indeed the answer for how to have real democracy in America! Those of us at Assemble America are building a movement for democracy by lottery. But much more than Venice, it's the ancient Athenian democracy we should most emulate: https://assemblingamerica.substack.com/p/why-greece-was-great?r=7ymja
This isn’t really about Venetian mechanics. It’s about what systems do after legitimacy collapses: they stop selecting leaders and start selecting constraints.
Venice didn’t last because of sortition itself, but because ambition kept colliding with randomness, delay, and opaque process. Power became hard to seize, not morally illegitimate.
Read this less as “democracy reimagined” and more as an early sketch of post-legitimacy governance.
You've chosen some parts of Venetian selection and not others. That is of course your right. But people should also know how RADICALLY the Venetian system departs from our own.
Of course, we'd all endorse some differences from Venice's procedures. We'd make it a government for all citizens, not the couple of thousand odd people in the 'Golden Book' - a list of wealthy families from which you had to come to get a vote at all - a list that closed in 1297!
But for me, the beauty of the Venetian system is the thoroughgoing rigour with which it builds its system around the proscription of self-assertion - the very engine behind the gaming of the system for wealth, power and patronage. That's why the French call the Venetian system "élection sans candidats".
If anyone is interested, I got Claude to provide a guide to what in your story is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Venetian system and what is not. Reiterating my point that you're welcome to take and leave what you like from the system, my own preference is to hew much closer to what I'd call the 'anti-narcissistic architecture' of the Venetian system.
The most unrealistic part is that people liked the climate scientist
This is so on point. The only glimmer of hope in this dark time is that we emerge with a reformed electoral system.
We've so enjoyed reading this - sortition ideals at its finest - thank you for writing this fantastic piece! Let's just hope this is the direction the world is going in. Another democratic future 'is' possible!
When I started reading I was sure it was stupid. By the end I changed my mind. Sure, maybe some tweaking is in order, but I like putting all the candidates in a place where they can be grilled for days or weeks by normal people with all America watching. Self-selection is interesting too. Can we try this first in a big state?
One if those tweaks: I’m not wild about RCV. Four people with a runoff for the top 2 if no one gets over 50% works better for millions of people.
I absolutely love this idea.
The "story" itself is so compelling and exciting, just a glimmer of what a true selection process would be like to watch or engage in.
The real beauty of it is that it can't be gamed.
ALTHOUGH, I can think of a couple of weaknesses.
First, the 1000 are vulnerable to coercion as soon as they are selected. They ought to be sequestered for the length of time it takes them to be FBI vetted. Meanwhile, they have sequestered access to the candidate info. Once Vetting is complete, the eliminated selectors are removed, and the remaining can immediate lock in their votes.
Second, I'm concerned about any electronic system for number generation. I'd rather see colored marbles, black and white, in a velvet bag. Witness the empty bag, the counted marbles, and then they come to pick a marble.
Or else, put a hundred numbered balls in a lotto barrel with each person selecting a ball at the moment of their choosing.
I think these more analogue selection options are less easily gamed than any electronic system. But I do appreciate the efficiency of an electronic system.
Third, those 9 selectors returned to the group? I think they ought to be selected and sequestered at this point: "Out of the 907 initial Selectors, 37 Grand Selectors are chosen by lot."
Stick them in an Exile Island wing of the Ranch. They can interract with each other, but are kept from the other groups, and not allowed any more freedoms than the other groups.
This ensures that the 9 Churn Selectors have not been gamed.
This means that ANY possible gaming occurs before the 1000 is selected, and will hopefully be weeded out during the de-gaming process.
Maybe I'm getting mixed up in the details, but you can see where I'm coming from.
I am think that if there is any possible way to game the system, people will find a way to do it.
Thanks for reading, anyway!
I love it! Long, but definitely worth the read.
Unfortunately, there is probably still a lot of darkness ahead before things will get better. It is unlikely that anything like the above will ever be put in place, but dreaming nice dreams probably won't hurt...
Great stuff 👏
Brilliant!
Two readers, two comments. That's about it.
This is fascinating. Maybe for the long term, this is the most important work: imagining the rebirth of America, for we are clearly experiencing its death, in so many ways. A truly fresh vision, not reaching for magic wands or tired, failed playbooks . . . this now beckons our best minds. This feels vital, thank you. It's more than a new American Revolution. This needs to be the American Evolution.
I think I'm taking a break for now and looking for a "better climate Substack"
Fascinating, I think it really would be an edge-of-the-seat spectator sport! Very different from today, where you are watching, because the person you really hate might beat the person you dislike. Maybe the public would judge the folks based on the one whose positions they really support and agree with? I mean, all they will really have to go on (hopefully) is what the candidates actually "say" during the process.
But overall, in the end, it's still one human being given all too much power. I'd prefer a solution where perhaps the last 50 form a committee? Or would that just end up in deadlock all the time?
Sortition is indeed the answer for how to have real democracy in America! Those of us at Assemble America are building a movement for democracy by lottery. But much more than Venice, it's the ancient Athenian democracy we should most emulate: https://assemblingamerica.substack.com/p/why-greece-was-great?r=7ymja
That's a lot of steps to avoid having a parliament. :P
To spice it up you could have a normal proportionally elected lower chamber but a sortition-selected upper chamber.
This isn’t really about Venetian mechanics. It’s about what systems do after legitimacy collapses: they stop selecting leaders and start selecting constraints.
Venice didn’t last because of sortition itself, but because ambition kept colliding with randomness, delay, and opaque process. Power became hard to seize, not morally illegitimate.
Read this less as “democracy reimagined” and more as an early sketch of post-legitimacy governance.
AI slop
You've chosen some parts of Venetian selection and not others. That is of course your right. But people should also know how RADICALLY the Venetian system departs from our own.
Of course, we'd all endorse some differences from Venice's procedures. We'd make it a government for all citizens, not the couple of thousand odd people in the 'Golden Book' - a list of wealthy families from which you had to come to get a vote at all - a list that closed in 1297!
But for me, the beauty of the Venetian system is the thoroughgoing rigour with which it builds its system around the proscription of self-assertion - the very engine behind the gaming of the system for wealth, power and patronage. That's why the French call the Venetian system "élection sans candidats".
If anyone is interested, I got Claude to provide a guide to what in your story is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Venetian system and what is not. Reiterating my point that you're welcome to take and leave what you like from the system, my own preference is to hew much closer to what I'd call the 'anti-narcissistic architecture' of the Venetian system.
https://claude.ai/share/0519a792-4812-4378-8181-6220c9e2512c