Home
Iniciar Sesión
Registrarse
Loading...
Práctica de escucha
Escuchar
/
Video
/
TED-Ed
/
Should we replace politicians with randomly selected people? - Michael Vazquez
Should we replace politicians with randomly selected people? - Michael Vazquez
Seleccionar modo de aprendizaje:
Ver subtítulos
Elegir palabra
Reescribir palabra
Highlight:
3000 Oxford Words
4000 IELTS Words
5000 Oxford Words
3000 Common Words
1000 TOEIC Words
5000 TOEFL Words
Subtítulos (91)
0:06
Elections— often called the cornerstone of democracy—
0:10
are tools that ensure a nation's citizens all have an equal political voice.
0:15
But these so-called “great equalizers” have long been plagued by corruption,
0:20
partisan divides, and uninformed voters.
0:24
Which is why some of democracy’s first and most famous practitioners
0:28
used a different approach.
0:31
From 508 to 322 BCE,
0:35
Athens increasingly moved away from elected officials.
0:40
Outside specialized positions
0:42
like military generals and senior finance officers,
0:46
most legislative, executive, and judicial roles
0:50
were appointed via lottery.
0:53
Starting at age 30, citizens could place a token with their name
0:58
into an allotment machine.
1:00
These machines appointed citizens to government positions
1:04
through a process designed to ensure randomness and prevent fraud.
1:11
Before getting the job, chosen candidates underwent a public examination
1:16
to investigate their character,
1:18
and those that passed would typically serve for a single year.
1:23
When their term ended,
1:24
they underwent another public review to investigate their conduct
1:28
and financial dealings while in office.
1:32
This system was called sortition,
1:35
and its goal was to promote political equality.
1:39
In fact, Athenians saw lotteries as more democratic than voting,
1:44
since they believed elections favored the wealthy and well-connected.
1:49
Random appointees, on the other hand,
1:52
were ordinary citizens stepping up to fulfill their civic duty.
1:56
And since most offices didn't allow repeat terms,
2:00
sortition prevented people from gaining too much political influence.
2:05
Of course, this system was far from perfect.
2:08
Athenian sortition excluded women, foreign-born residents,
2:13
and enslaved peoples.
2:15
And, as philosophers like Plato and Aristotle pointed out,
2:19
political decision-making requires expertise,
2:23
a quality that's difficult to develop in short appointments,
2:27
and can't be guaranteed by random selection.
2:31
But broadly, this lottery-based system had strong public support.
2:37
It was the dominant form of democracy during Athens’ Golden Age,
2:42
and it only truly ended when Athens’ conquerors abolished democracy altogether.
2:48
So if sortition provided stability then, could it do so now?
2:54
Political philosopher Alex Guerrero thinks it could,
2:58
and he’s even proposed a modern American version of sortition
3:03
that he calls lottocracy.
3:05
Here’s how it works: rather than relying on one decision-making body
3:10
for every issue,
3:12
Guerrero proposes multiple assemblies, each dedicated to a specific policy area.
3:19
These single-issue, lottery-selected legislatures, or SILLs,
3:24
are made up of hundreds of randomly chosen citizens
3:28
who get trained in their assembly’s topic area by experts and advocates.
3:34
Then, after consulting with the public to get their perspective,
3:38
the members of a SILL draft and vote on topic-specific policies.
3:44
This system extends all the way to the top,
3:47
distributing even the powers of the presidency
3:50
across a network lottery-filled Executive Assemblies
3:55
and the administrative officials they appoint.
3:58
Advocates of lottocracy believe it could address three of the biggest problems
4:04
facing modern democracies.
4:06
First, unequal representation.
4:09
Since successful election campaigns require money and influence,
4:13
many elected officials are much wealthier than the average voter.
4:19
At various points from 2014 to 2025,
4:22
half of US Congress members were millionaires.
4:27
Problem two: most candidates rely on donations
4:31
from individuals, corporations, and special interest groups
4:35
who may try to influence their policies.
4:38
Lottocracy makes influence harder to buy by avoiding elections,
4:44
offering appointees generous compensation, and enforcing shorter term limits.
4:50
The third problem is a lack of policy making competence.
4:55
While career politicians juggle dozens of policy proposals
4:59
on countless complicated issues,
5:02
SILLs let their members become experts in a single topic.
5:07
As you would expect, this radical proposal has critics.
5:11
Political theorists Cristina LaFont and Nadia Urbinati
5:15
argue that lottocracy asks most citizens to defer
5:20
to a randomly chosen few.
5:22
They believe that democracies should allow citizens
5:26
to exercise political freedom as equals— and elections are central to that.
5:31
Elections let people set the political agenda,
5:34
and they bind officeholders to a continuing cycle of accountability,
5:39
both at the polls and in the public eye.
5:43
In their view, voting is how citizens collectively shape and limit public power,
5:49
And without it,
5:50
even the most competent lottocratic government
5:53
could feel like rule by experts.
5:56
Without elections, it can be hard to say what makes a system democratic.
6:00
But this debate highlights a shared goal:
6:04
we all want institutions that serve everyone and address real problems.
6:10
And just like every other element of democracy,
6:13
it’s up to us to keep experimenting until we find a system
6:17
that achieves those ideals.
