Made this a little bit ago but it meshes with something I think about a lot lately: how there’s a huge difference between making a point and making a difference.
One sees the world in this-or-that options, the other engages creativity. One benefits from people being divided, playing to one side. The other seeks to meet people where they are.
There are others who think applying more randomness to governance might help get us unstuck. It’s not a new idea. It’s how leaders were chosen in Ancient Athens, and there are a growing number of people who think it could help some of our modern processes.
In theory, modern politics are so gridlocked by partisanship, a culture of us versus them, and the way leaders are incentivized to rally their crowds rather than solve problems. Randomly chosen people are less swayed by party talking points and political games, and more motivated to solve the problem at hand.
Random people are already tasked with pretty big decisions on juries. And recently, randomly gathered citizen assemblies have proposed climate policy in France and election reforms in British Columbia.
At the very least, it’s something to be curious about!