>
...most so-called democracies today are effectively oligarchies.I'd like a taxonomy of democracy. Or perhaps even a catalog of traits. Might help limit crosstalk. Like other nebulous ideas -- love, truth, self -- we're all using the same word to talk about different ideas.
Twenty years ago, I reflexively rejected the very notion of sortition as ridiculous. I had spent a decade as an election integrity activist, deep diving into voting rights, election administration, and other arcana. I was utterly committed to the obvious virtue of the Australian Ballot. To the necessity of transitioning to Proportional Representation and Approval Voting. The hills I would happily die on.
Now? Not so much.
After reading David Graeber and rereading Chomsky and Jill Lepore's early history of polling (eg Gallup), I'm newly open to considering alternatives. Thoughtful deliberation sounds pretty fucking great about now. Stuff like citizen's assemblies to tackle thorny policy debates. And maybe polling is superior to voting, at least for some use cases.
--
Any way. Current me agrees with both you and OC wrt democracy vs oligarchies.
Restated, our current group decision making institutions and strategies are prone to capture, which then transmute democratic arrangements into oligarchies.
We see this over and over again, big and small. Just witness all the coops (like farmers cooperatives) which are vulnerable to hostile takeovers, thereby disempowering the actual members.
--
We need better technology. Something that is both more democratic and less resistant to capture.
Is that even possible?
Ever play Nomic? It's game which simulates the Paradox of Self-Amendment. Basically the game version of what we call a constitutional government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic
Or, we can just emulate our ancestors. According to Graeber and Wengrow (Dawn of Everything), many societies used culture and tradition (vs rulesets) to contain would be tyrants. Often thru violence.