Random lots has some appeal. Buckley said it well as regards our elites: “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.”
For what it's worth (not much!), rather than reduce transparency I prefer solutions that strike at the heart of polarization. Rank choice voting has some appeal, though I am sympathetic to those who argue that it may be too confusing. A simpler method that I particularly like for choosing representatives would involve merging n-districts and then electing the top n. This should (for a relatively low value of n) lead to reduced polarization and a better representation of the true breakdown of the voting population. Of course n cannot get too large or we sacrifice the benefit of local representation (i.e. it becomes more like a state-wide election).
Good points! I think rank choice is great. n-districts is intriguing although I have studied it less.
Random lots has some appeal. Buckley said it well as regards our elites: “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.”
For what it's worth (not much!), rather than reduce transparency I prefer solutions that strike at the heart of polarization. Rank choice voting has some appeal, though I am sympathetic to those who argue that it may be too confusing. A simpler method that I particularly like for choosing representatives would involve merging n-districts and then electing the top n. This should (for a relatively low value of n) lead to reduced polarization and a better representation of the true breakdown of the voting population. Of course n cannot get too large or we sacrifice the benefit of local representation (i.e. it becomes more like a state-wide election).