Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative

IF 2.1 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Alexander A. Guerrero
{"title":"Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative","authors":"Alexander A. Guerrero","doi":"10.1111/PAPA.12029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is widely accepted that electoral representative democracy is better — along a number of different normative dimensions — than any other alternative lawmaking political arrangement. It is not typically seen as much of a competition: it is also widely accepted that the only legitimate alternative to electoral representative democracy is some form of direct democracy, but direct democracy — we are told — would lead to bad policy. This article makes the case that there is a legitimate alternative system — one that uses lotteries, not elections, to select political officials — that would be better than electoral representative democracy. Part I diagnoses two significant failings of modern-day systems of electoral representative government: the failure of responsiveness and the failure of good governance. The argument offered suggests that these flaws run deep, so that even significant and politically unlikely reforms with respect to campaign finance and election law would make little difference. Although my distillation of the argument is novel, the basic themes will likely be familiar. I anticipate the initial response to the argument may be familiar as well: the Churchillian shrug. Parts II, III, and IV of this article represent the beginning of an effort to move past that response, to think about alternative political systems that might avoid some of the problems with the electoral representative system without introducing new and worse problems. In the second and third parts of the article, I outline an alternative political system, the lottocratic system, and present some of the virtues of such a system. In the fourth part of the article, I consider some possible problems for the system. The overall aims of this article are to raise worries for electoral systems of government, to present the lottocratic system and to defend the view that this system might be a normatively attractive alternative, removing a significant hurdle to taking a non-electoral system of government seriously as a possible improvement to electoral democracy.","PeriodicalId":47999,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Public Affairs","volume":"42 1","pages":"135-178"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2014-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/PAPA.12029","citationCount":"160","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy & Public Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/PAPA.12029","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 160

Abstract

It is widely accepted that electoral representative democracy is better — along a number of different normative dimensions — than any other alternative lawmaking political arrangement. It is not typically seen as much of a competition: it is also widely accepted that the only legitimate alternative to electoral representative democracy is some form of direct democracy, but direct democracy — we are told — would lead to bad policy. This article makes the case that there is a legitimate alternative system — one that uses lotteries, not elections, to select political officials — that would be better than electoral representative democracy. Part I diagnoses two significant failings of modern-day systems of electoral representative government: the failure of responsiveness and the failure of good governance. The argument offered suggests that these flaws run deep, so that even significant and politically unlikely reforms with respect to campaign finance and election law would make little difference. Although my distillation of the argument is novel, the basic themes will likely be familiar. I anticipate the initial response to the argument may be familiar as well: the Churchillian shrug. Parts II, III, and IV of this article represent the beginning of an effort to move past that response, to think about alternative political systems that might avoid some of the problems with the electoral representative system without introducing new and worse problems. In the second and third parts of the article, I outline an alternative political system, the lottocratic system, and present some of the virtues of such a system. In the fourth part of the article, I consider some possible problems for the system. The overall aims of this article are to raise worries for electoral systems of government, to present the lottocratic system and to defend the view that this system might be a normatively attractive alternative, removing a significant hurdle to taking a non-electoral system of government seriously as a possible improvement to electoral democracy.
反对选举:彩票替代方案
人们普遍认为,选举代议制民主- -在若干不同的规范方面- -比任何其他备选的立法政治安排都要好。它通常不被视为一种竞争:人们也普遍认为,选举代议制民主的唯一合法选择是某种形式的直接民主,但我们被告知,直接民主会导致糟糕的政策。这篇文章指出,有一种合法的替代制度——用彩票而不是选举来选举政治官员——将比选举代议制民主更好。第一部分诊断了现代选举代议制政府制度的两个重大缺陷:反应不力和善治不力。提出的论点表明,这些缺陷根深蒂固,因此,即使在竞选资金和选举法方面进行重大的、政治上不太可能的改革,也不会有什么不同。虽然我对这个论点的提炼是新颖的,但基本主题可能是熟悉的。我预计对这一论点的最初反应可能也很熟悉:丘吉尔式的耸肩。本文的第二、第三和第四部分代表了一种努力的开始,即超越这种反应,思考另一种政治制度,这种制度可能避免选举代议制的一些问题,而不会带来新的和更严重的问题。在文章的第二和第三部分,我概述了另一种政治制度,即抽签制度,并提出了这种制度的一些优点。在文章的第四部分,我考虑了该系统可能存在的一些问题。本文的总体目标是提出对政府选举制度的担忧,介绍抽签制制度,并捍卫这种制度可能是一种具有规范吸引力的替代方案的观点,消除了将非选举政府制度认真视为可能改善选举民主的重大障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
23
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信