I imagine there must be at least one political sciences/philosophy student somewhere who gave this a thought, but I never found anything.
I imagine there must be at least one political sciences/philosophy student somewhere who gave this a thought, but I never found anything.
Unlike democracy, it doesn't suffer from the fact that the corrupt or power hungry rise to the top. Lobbyists would have less power.
There are also some suggestions that a random sampling of a population will lead to a better selection mechanism - similar to suggestions that promoting randomly would be better for organisations.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education...
I don't see any reason to believe that is true in any substantive way. Most of the corrupting and influence mechanisms that work in democracy work in demarchy, and some are cheaper. OTOH, there's an entirely new corruption mechanism introduced, corrupting the “random” selection mechanism (either at the source or between the notional mechanism and the public reporting of results, which is ultimately what really matters).
Besides that 'The desire to be a politician should be enough to ban you from ever becoming one' (Bill Connolly), those who don't accept dubious donations will suffer in advertising dollars compared to those who do.
Additionally it has been noted that psychopaths often rise to the top - a problem that isn't presented with demarchy.
Besides that 'The desire to be a politician should be enough to ban you from ever becoming one' (Bill Connolly), those who don't accept dubious donations will suffer in advertising dollars compared to those who do.
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
https://www.seasteading.org/floating-islands-project-in-fren...
Not saying that’s a good alternative to democracy, but it sure is interesting
http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html
it would probably not work because of Goodhart's law, and be generally rejected for being too weird. something for vulkans to try out, maybe.