Random Limited Sufferage
Kevin Dempsey Peterson (peterson@ocf.Berkeley.EDU)
Fri, 3 Apr 1998 00:34:23 -0800
I had an idea that isn't really related to libertarianism, except that
libertarianism is the most rational political system, and the reason it
isn't being adopted is that people don't really think about politics.
I'm writing a short essay which I'll put on my web page soon, but I'd
like to hear what anyone else thinks about it. I remember reading
somewhere (I think something by Robert Anton Wilson) something like "men
had a monopoly on voting for a long time, why don't we give women a
monopoly on voting and just see what happens". David Friedman's proof
that it isn't worth it to vote (Hidden Order 289-293) was what got me
thinking about the idea again.
The idea is that instead of allowing everyone to vote, you allow the
same people as today to register to vote, then about a year before an
election, you randomly select perhaps one out every thousand people and
tell them that they are the only ones who will be voting in the next
election. Since these people now have a chance to make a difference
with their vote (since your vote is worth so much), they will pay
attention to politics and analyse the issues a lot more thoroughly than
peoople do now. It would lead to much more rational politics, and kill
all the special interests overnight. People could still vote in their
own interests, but people wouldn't be controlled by the advertising of
special interests like they are today (I'm voting for blah because he
doesn't look as slimey). It's perfectly fair, as long as people are
chosen truely randomly. Bribery wouldn't be an issue because we would
still have secret ballots, and when your vote is one out of 100,000
deciding who will run the country for 4 years, you'll vote for who you
think is better, and pocket the bribe as well.
Thoughts?
--Kevin
http://www.autobahn.org/~peterson