[SUBMITTED] What Are The Odds?

[Great Robertia]

I decided to try my hand at drafting again! A while ago I had asked whether there was a specific issue that repeals the Sorition policy and I was told there was none yet. Therefore, I decided to draft an issue that focuses on nations that have Sortition, to fill in the supposed gap in this area! I'd love to hear what works and what doesn't and want could use improvement As pointed out to me, I was wrong about there being a gap! I hope however that this issue can still fit in alongside the other ones, as there aren't too many issues on Sorition yet.

CURRENT DRAFT:

[Name] What Are The Odds?

[Validity] Must have Sortition policy

[Description] A new parliamentary selection has been randomly drawn from all eligible @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@! Yet as you enter the main hall to witness the inauguration ceremony and politely nod at the people you pass by, you realise with dawning horror that an overwhelming majority of the parliamentary candidates are known opponents of your policies, having publicly expressed their disagreement with your rule at one point or another. It seems the deck is unnaturally stacked against you.

[Option 1] "How could this have happened?!" asks President of the Selection Committee @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, a little too excessively aghast. "The odds of this occurring naturally are simply astronomical! Thank goodness the issue was caught in time, before anyone was sworn in. Now we'll simply need to declare the results of this drawing null and void and draw a new selection. If the same occurs again somehow, we'll keep redrawing and rejecting until we have a parliament as random as a game of jackstraws!"

[Effect 1] Selection Committees disappear for years on end whenever new parliamentarians are drawn

[Option 2] "Selection fraud?!" gasps committee member @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, @@HIS_2@@ eyes shifty. "I tell you, my peers are corrupt all up to those little eyeballs of theirs. Put me in charge of a thorough audit of the entire committee and prosecute anyone who even looked funny at the drawing selection! We also need to ensure this will never happen again. I propose cameras, portable heart-rate monitors, pitbulls... and a fortified military bunker where we will keep the dice! Our lottocracy is at stake!"

[Effect 2] chance cannot be left to chance in @@NAME@@

[Option 3] Your brother - who always manages to find himself at your side in times such as these - leans over to you conspiratorially. "You know, this could be an opportunity for you," he says with a diabolical turning of the lips. "Because what this committee of sad little frauds did, we could do too. Put me in charge of a new, more loyal selection committee and under the guise of randomness, I'll insure the parliament's composition will always align with your agenda. You'll reign supreme, with none the wiser!"

[Effect 3] everyone promptly backs out whenever @@LEADER@@ joins a game of chance

[Option 4] One of the parliamentary candidates looks rather uncomfortable. "I really don't want to be here and I definitely don't want this job. All this parliamentary stuff is for people who really love to hear themselves talking and I'm not one of them. I just want to go home, catch up on Game of Chairs and pet my @@ANIMAL@@. If we really have given up on democracy for good, couldn't we at least have a sign-up sheet for those that want to be drawn for parliament? Please? I'd really like to go now..."

[Effect 4] nothing is as predictable as the tides of parliamentary politics

DRAFT 6:

[Name] What Are The Odds?

[Validity] Must have Sortition policy

[Description] A new parliamentary selection has been randomly drawn from all eligible @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@! Yet as you enter the main hall to witness the inauguration ceremony and politely nod at the people you pass by, you realise with dawning horror that an overwhelming majority of the parliamentary candidates are known opponents of your policies, having publicly expressed their disagreement with your rule at one point or another. It seems the deck is unnaturally stacked against you.

[Option 1] "How could this have happened?!" asks President of the Selection Committee @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, a little too excessively aghast. "The odds of this occurring naturally are simply astronomical! Now that we're caught-err, I mean, now that the issue has been caught, ahem, we'll declare the results of this drawing null and void and draw a new selection. If the same happens, we'll keep redrawing and rejecting until we have a parliament as random as a game of jackstraws!"

[Effect 1] Selection Committees disappear for years on end whenever new parliamentarians are drawn

[Option 2] "Selection fraud?!" gasps committee member @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, @@HIS_2@@ eyes shifty. "I tell you, my peers are corrupt all up to those little eyeballs of theirs. Put me in charge of a thorough audit of the entire committee and prosecute anyone who even looked funny at the drawing selection! We also need to ensure this will never happen again. I propose cameras, portable heart-rate monitors, pitbulls... and a fortified military bunker where we will keep the dice! Our lottocracy is at stake!"

[Effect 2] chance cannot be left to chance in @@NAME@@

[Option 3] Your brother - who always manages to find himself at your side in times such as these - leans over to you conspiratorially. "You know, this could be an opportunity for you," he says with a diabolical turning of the lips. "Because what this committee of sad little frauds did, we could do too. Put me in charge of a new, more loyal selection committee and under the guise of randomness, I'll insure the parliament's composition will always align with your agenda. You'll reign supreme, with none the wiser!"

[Effect 3] everyone promptly backs out whenever @@LEADER@@ joins a game of chance

[Option 4] One of the parliamentary candidates looks rather uncomfortable. "I really don't want to be here and I definitely don't want this job. All this parliamentary stuff is for people who really love to hear themselves talking and I'm not one of them. I just want to go home, catch up on Game of Chairs and pet my @@ANIMAL@@. If we really have given up on democracy for good, couldn't we at least have a sign-up sheet for those that want to be drawn for parliament? Please? I'd really like to go now..."

[Effect 4] nothing is as predictable as the tides of parliamentary politics

DRAFT 5:

[Name] What Are The Odds?

[Validity] Must have Sortition policy

[Description] A new parliament has been randomly selected from all eligible @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@! Yet as you enter the main hall to witness the inauguration ceremony and politely nod to the people you pass by, you realise with dawning horror that an overwhelming majority of the parliamentary candidates are known opponents of your policies, having publicly expressed their disagreement with your rule at one point or another. It seems the deck is unnaturally stacked against you.

[Option 1] "However could this have happened?!" asks President of the Selection Committee @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, a little too excessively aghast. "The odds of this occurring naturally are simply astronomical! Now that we're caught-err, I mean, now that the issue has been caught, ahem, we'll declare the results of this drawing null and void and draw a new selection. If the same happens, we'll keep redrawing and rejecting until we have a parliament as random as a game of jackstraws!"

[Effect 1] Selection Committees disappear for years on end whenever new parliamentarians are drawn

[Option 2] "Selection fraud?!" dramatically gasps @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, one of the committee members whose eyes seemed rather shifty a moment ago. "It's evident my fellow committee members are corrupt all up to those little eyeballs of theirs. Put me in charge of a thorough audit of the entire committee and prosecute anyone who even looked funny at the drawing selection! We also need to ensure this will never happen again. I propose cameras, portable heart-rate monitors, pitbulls... and a fortified military bunker where we will keep the dice! Our lottocracy is at stake!"

[Effect 2] chance cannot be left to chance in @@NAME@@

[Option 3] Your brother - who somehow always manages to find himself at your side in times such as these - leans over to you conspiratorially. "You know, this could be an opportunity for you," he says with a diabolical turning of the lips. "Because what this committee of sad little frauds did, we could do too. Put me in charge of a new, more loyal selection committee and under the guise of randomness, I'll insure the parliament's composition will always align with your agenda. You'll reign supreme, with none the wiser!"

[Effect 3] everyone promptly backs out whenever @@LEADER@@ joins a game of chance

[Option 4] One of the parliamentary candidates looks rather uncomfortable. "@@LEADER@@, I really don't want to be here and I definitely don't want this job. All this parliamentary stuff is for people who really love to hear themselves talking and I'm not one of them. I just want to go home, catch up on some episodes of Game of Chairs and pet my @@ANIMAL@@. If we have given up on democracy for good, couldn't we at least have a sign-up sheet for those that want to be drawn for parliament? Please? I'd really like to go now..."

[Effect 4] parliamentary candidates feign shock and surprise when they are drawn for the eight time in a row

DRAFT 4:

[Name] What Are The Odds?

[Validity] Must have Sortition policy

[Description] A new parliament has been randomly selected from all eligible @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@! Yet as you enter the main hall to witness the inauguration ceremony and politely nod to the people you pass by, you realise with dawning horror that an overwhelming majority of the parliamentary candidates are known opponents of your policies, having publicly expressed their disagreement with your rule at one point or another. It seems the deck is unnaturally stacked against you.

[Option 1] "However could this have happened?!" asks President of the Selection Committee @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, a little too excessively aghast. "The odds of this occurring naturally are simply astronomical! Now that we're caught-err, I mean, now that the issue has been caught, ahem, we'll declare the results of this drawing null and void and draw a new selection. If the same happens, we'll keep redrawing and rejecting until we have a parliament as random as a game of jackstraws!"

[Effect 1] no two Bobs and no two Annas can have a seat in @@NAME@@'s parliament

[Option 2] "Selection fraud?!" dramatically gasps @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, one of the committee members whose eyes seemed rather shifty a moment ago. "It's evident my fellow committee members are corrupt all up to those little eyeballs of theirs. Put me in charge of a thorough audit of the entire committee and prosecute anyone who even looked funny at the drawing selection! We also need to ensure this will never happen again. I propose cameras, portable heart-rate monitors, pitbulls... and a fortified military bunker where we will keep the dice! Our lottocracy is at stake!"

[Effect 2] chance cannot be left to chance in @@NAME@@

[Option 3] Your brother - who somehow always manages to find himself at your side in times such as these - leans over to you conspiratorially. "You know, this could be an opportunity for you," he says with a diabolical turning of the lips. "Because what this committee of sad little frauds did, we could do too. Put me in charge of a new, more loyal selection committee and under the guise of randomness, I'll insure the parliament's composition will always align with your agenda. You'll reign supreme, with none the wiser!"

[Effect 3] the odds are always in @@LEADER@@'s favour, after all

[Option 4] One of the parliamentary candidates looks rather uncomfortable. "@@LEADER@@, I really don't want to be here and I definitely don't want this job. All this parliamentary stuff is for people who really love to hear themselves talking and I'm not one of them. I just want to go home, catch up on some episodes of Game of Chairs and pet my @@ANIMAL@@. If we have given up on democracy for good, couldn't we at least have a sign-up sheet for those that want to be drawn for parliament? Please? I'd really like to go now..."

[Effect 4] new parliamentary candidates feign shock and surprise when they are drawn for the eight time in a row

DRAFT 3:

[Name] What Are The Odds?

[Validity] Must have Sortition policy

[Description] It's @@NAME@@'s lucky day! The new members of parliament have been randomly selected from all the eligible @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ and today the inauguration of this august body will take place. Yet as you arrive for the ceremony, you notice the supposedly randomly selected candidates are all chummy with the members of the selection committee. After having sent out your aides like a flock of little birds, you're notified that every randomly selected candidate for parliament - without exclusion - is at least well-acquainted with one committee member or another. You promptly gather a fidgety ensemble of committee members to get some answers.

[Option 1] "The odds of this occurring naturally are astronomical! Something must have gone terribly wrong during the selection process and I promise it had nothing to do with the pleas of our friends and acquaintances!" exclaims the committee's president @@RANDOMNAME_1@@ excessively aghast. "Now that we're caught-err, I mean, now that the issue has been caught, we need to declare the drawing null and void and postpone the inauguration indefinitely. Then we will redraw the candidates for parliament and if there is any sign of a selection that looks too coincidental to be natural, we'll reject the results and restart! I promise you, we'll have a parliament as random as a game of jackstraws."

[Effect 1] the political process of @@NAME@@ has ground to a halt, as no two Bobs and no two Annas can have a seat in parliament

[Option 2] "Bah! This is OUTRAGEOUS!" bellows @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, one of the committee members whose eyes seemed rather shifty a moment ago. "We need to audit this corrupt group of ne'er-do-wells and prosecute any fraudulent dogs to the fullest extent of the law! Yes, I said it, you vagrants. FRAUD! This parliamentary selection must be dismissed immediately, as these results cannot have happened without the shady hand of one of my fellow committee members fiddling with them. We need safeguards to ensure this will never happen again: cameras, portable heart-rate monitors, pitbulls... and a fortified military bunker where we will keep the dice! Our lottocracy is at stake, @@LEADER@@!"

[Effect 2] chance cannot be left to chance in @@NAME@@

[Option 3] Your brother - who somehow always manages to find himself at your side in times such as these - leans over to you conspiratorially. "You know, this could be an opportunity for you," he begins with a diabolical grin on his lips. "Because what this committee of sad little frauds did, we could do too. Put me in charge of a new, more shadowy selection committee and under the guise of randomness, I'll insure the parliament's composition will always align with your agenda. You'll reign supreme, with none the wiser!"

[Effect 3] the odds are always in @@LEADER@@'s favour

[Option 4] To no one's surprise your sister appears at your side and shakes her head disapprovingly at what your brother just said. "You know better than to heed the advice of our wayward sibling! Dear brother, isn't it obvious this lottocracy of yours isn't working? It's just as clear as our sibling's insanity that even a seemingly random drawing can be rigged to favour the results of a third party. Now, I know what you'll say, democratic elections are just as easy to rig. Blackacre proved it when they got that buffoon elected President of the United Federation. But at least we can pretend it was the will of the people! Do away with this sortition business and let democracy decide!"

[Effect 4] @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ playing bingo these days demand to vote which numbers should be selected

DRAFT 2:

[Name] What Are The Odds?

[Validity] Must have Sortition policy

[Description] It's @@NAME@@'s lucky day! The new members of parliament have been randomly selected from all the eligible @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ and today the inauguration of this august body will take place. Yet entering the parliament's hall is like stepping into a surrealist dream: hundreds of identical looking young, white men, all with blonde hair, brown eyes and apparently all named 'Chad', are staring at you in puzzled, uncomfortable silence. The committee responsible for the lottery drawing - an ensemble of diversely looking individuals you have a lot of questions for - rushes toward you.

[Option 1] "Oh, @@LEADER@@, a thousand apologies!" exclaims the committee's president @@RANDOMNAME_1@@. "The odds of this occurring naturally are astronomical! Something must have gone terribly wrong during the selection process and that's simply unforgivable. We have to declare the drawing null and void and postpone the inauguration indefinitely. Then we will redraw the candidates for parliament and if there is any sign of a selection that looks too coincidental to be natural, we'll reject the results and restart! I promise you, we will have a parliament as random as a game of jackstraws."

[Effect 1] the political process of @@NAME@@ has ground to a halt, as no two Bobs and no two Annas can have a seat in parliament

[Option 2] "Unforgivable?! This is OUTRAGEOUS!" bellows @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, one of the committee members whose eyes seemed rather shifty a moment ago. "We need to audit this corrupt group of ne'er-do-wells and prosecute any fraudulent dogs to the fullest extent of the law! Yes, I said it, you vagrants. FRAUD! This parliamentary selection must be dismissed immediately, as these results cannot have happened without the shady hand of one of my fellow committee members fiddling with them. We need safeguards to ensure this will never happen again: cameras, portable heart-rate monitors, pitbulls... and a fortified military bunker where we will keep the dice! Our lottocracy is at stake, @@LEADER@@!"

[Effect 2] chance cannot be left to chance in @@NAME@@

[Option 3] One of the committee members - a kindly old man clad in long, white and brown robes - sighs wearily and extends his hands as if about to be cuffed. "In my experience there is no such thing as luck," he states definitively. "Of course I know who the fraud is, it's me. I rigged the drawing to show you that chance cannot determine the fate of our country. Use the force of democracy, @@LEADER@@! Let the people decide who should represent them. Because this is not the system you are looking for..." he says, waving his hand weirdly in front of you as two security guards begin to carry him away.

[Effect 3] @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ playing bingo demand to vote which numbers should be selected

[Option 4] "Dude, no, this is what the Cosmic Flow wanted!" says Chad @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, albeit which golden-haired head in Parliament uttered the words is impossible to tell. "Duude, he's right. We're like the chosen ones or something," says Chad @@RANDOMLASTNAME_2@@. "Duuude, yeah! The Chads are meant to rule, man, don't unchad this plareme-, palariam-, pariah-, eh... oh! The Chadment! Yes, this is how it's supposed to be, leaderdude, let's get the Chadment rollin'," finishes Chad @@RANDOMLASTNAME_3@@.

[Effect 4] the halls of parliament are internationally known for their "CHADTASTIC PARTIES, YO!"

DRAFT 1:

[Name] What Are The Odds?

[Validity] Must have Sortition policy

[Description] It's @@NAME@@'s lucky day! The new members of parliament have been randomly selected from all the eligible citizens in the @@TYPE@@ and today the inauguration of this august body will take place. Yet entering the parliament's hall is like stepping into a surrealist dream: hundreds of identical looking white men, all with blonde hair, all with brown eyes and apparently all named 'Chad' are staring at you in puzzled, uncomfortable silence. The committee responsible for the lottery drawing - thankfully an ensemble of diversely looking individuals - rushes towards you.

[Option 1] "Oh, @@LEADER@@, a thousand and one apologies for this unprecedented occurrence!" exclaims the committee's president @@RANDOMNAME@@. "I didn't think it was statistically possible. By Violet, it simply shouldn't be! But rest assured, we will simply postpone the inauguration and do a redrawing at our earliest convenience! We won't stop until we have a parliament as diverse as a box of crayons."

[Effect 1] no two Bobs and no two Annas can have a seat in @@NAME@@'s parliament

[Option 2] "Dude, this is what the Cosmic Flow wanted!" says Chad @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, albeit which golden-haired head uttered the words is impossible to tell. "Duude, he's right. We're like the chosen ones or something," says Chad @@RANDOMLASTNAME_2@@. "Duuude, yeah! The Chads are meant to rule, man, don't unchad this plareme-, palariam-, pariah-, eh... oh! The Chadment! Yes, this is how it's supposed to be, leaderdude, let's get the Chadment rollin'," finishes Chad @@RANDOMLASTNAME_3@@.

[Effect 2] the halls of parliament are primarily used for "CHADTASTIC PARTIES, YO!"

[Option 3] One of the committee members - a kindly, bearded old man clad in long white and brown robes - sighs and looks at you severely. "In my experience there is no such thing as luck," he announces definitively and you vaguely remember his name to be something like Bobi One or Obin Won. "Yes, I rigged the drawing to show you that luck cannot determine the fate of our country. Use the force of democracy, @@LEADER@@! Let the people decide who should represent them. Because this is not the Parliament you are looking for..." he says, waving his hand weirdly in front of you.

[Effect 3] @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ playing bingo demand to vote which numbers should be selected

[Trotterdam]

A while ago I had asked whether there was a specific issue that repeals the Sorition policy and I was told there was none yet.

I don't know when you asked this, but it no longer seems to be correct. There's #465 and #1315. The former, going by the issue number, is quite old already.

Which is not to say that we can't have another issue on the subject, but let's look at the premise here.

Selection fraud is a serious problem under sortition - much as election fraud is in a democracy, for that matter - but your issue currently lacks focus, as it first appears to assume that the improbable outcome is a legitimate random fluke (with the options being "reject outcomes that don't look random enough even if they're legitimate", or "accept it as what luck has decided"), then only bothers suggesting the possibility of fraud in the last option - which isn't even opposed to the fraud!

Something like this genuinely happening as a result of randomness is extremely unlikely. If a minority comprises 10% of the population and parliament has 200 seats (an arbitrary but fairly reasonable number, actually low for larger nations), the chance of none of that minority being selected into parliament at all is 0.00000007%. If all 205973 nations currently in NationStates hold such a sortition every year, then it would take an average of 6882 years before this would happen even once. (This is before considering the even more improbable part about them all having the same name, which you obviously added for humor and isn't meant to be believable.)

For options, you should probably start with at least two different approaches to combating fraud (for example, rejecting results which look too coincidental to be natural, and thorough auditing of the selection committee and process to prevent tampering), one corrupt option for suggesting that @@LEADER@@ can make use of this to ensure the selection of ministers @@LEADER@@ would find politically convenient, and maybe one option for abolishing sortition (though as I said, democracy faces nearly the same problem - autocracy doesn't, but it might be too similar to the corrupt option).

[Great Robertia]

A while ago I had asked whether there was a specific issue that repeals the Sorition policy and I was told there was none yet.

I don't know when you asked this, but it no longer seems to be correct. There's #465 and #1315. The former, going by the issue number, is quite old already.

Which is not to say that we can't have another issue on the subject, but let's look at the premise here.

Selection fraud is a serious problem under sortition - much as election fraud is in a democracy, for that matter - but your issue currently lacks focus, as it first appears to assume that the improbable outcome is a legitimate random fluke (with the options being "reject outcomes that don't look random enough even if they're legitimate", or "accept it as what luck has decided"), then only bothers suggesting the possibility of fraud in the last option - which isn't even opposed to the fraud!

Something like this genuinely happening as a result of randomness is extremely unlikely. If a minority comprises 10% of the population and parliament has 200 seats (an arbitrary but fairly reasonable number, actually low for larger nations), the chance of none of that minority being selected into parliament at all is 0.00000007%. If all 205973 nations currently in NationStates hold such a sortition every year, then it would take an average of 6882 years before this would happen even once. (This is before considering the even more improbable part about them all having the same name, which you obviously added for humor and isn't meant to be believable.)

For options, you should probably start with at least two different approaches to combating fraud (for example, rejecting results which look too coincidental to be natural, and thorough auditing of the selection committee and process to prevent tampering), one corrupt option for suggesting that @@LEADER@@ can make use of this to ensure the selection of ministers @@LEADER@@ would find politically convenient, and maybe one option for abolishing sortition (though as I said, democracy faces nearly the same problem - autocracy doesn't, but it might be too similar to the corrupt option).

Ah, then I was under the wrong impression about there being a gap! I used a few keywords in the issues list, but "lottocracy" was the one that slipped my mind. Thank you for the correction

Of course, the selection of all male, all blonde and all Chads is purely there for humour and the chance of that happening without tampering is indeed astronomical. You are correct that the premise of the issue and the options should focus more on the fraud element, which should come through stronger. I will rewrite the issue to fit more with what you mention and post it as a second draft!

[Great Robertia]

Alright, new draft is up with a focus on selection fraud, as Trotterdam suggested! I'd love to hear how the issue appears now

[Fauxia]

I like the Chad joke. However, I don’t think you can make a reference to white men. Especially considering this is valid for nations with no immigration (correctly so), and my nation may be a nation of any other race (or a totally made up one). That’s why NS always ties to ethnicity rather than race or color. On the other hand, I’m not sure people looking alike is the most appropriate way to do this anyway. It seems more likely it would be the friends of the people doing the draw, or the wealthy bribed their way in.

[Great Robertia]

I like the Chad joke. However, I don’t think you can make a reference to white men. Especially considering this is valid for nations with no immigration (correctly so), and my nation may be a nation of any other race (or a totally made up one). That’s why NS always ties to ethnicity rather than race or color. On the other hand, I’m not sure people looking alike is the most appropriate way to do this anyway. It seems more likely it would be the friends of the people doing the draw, or the wealthy bribed their way in.

Alright, in light of your commentary I put up a new draft! I am eager to hear what people think I fully agree, the "white men" needed to be written out of the draft and the Chad thing was obviously meant to be humorous, but I hope the new approach will suit the issue better!

[Trotterdam]

you notice the supposedly randomly selected candidates are all chummy with the members of the selection committee. After having sent out your aides like a flock of little birds, you're notified that every randomly selected candidate for parliament - without exclusion - is at least well-acquainted with one committee member or another.

This seems to be a little hard to determine. Them being "chummy" could just be them being friendly people, rather than specifically already knowing the members of the selection committee. At the same time, who is "well-acquainted" with who is pretty hard to determine without an invasive spy network, since it's not like there are official records of that kind of thing.

I agree with why explicitly referring to them as "white men" was problematic, but I think you need to at least do something clearer, such as describing them as "all belonging to the ethnic majority" without specifying what that is, or having them all be famous business tycoons, or all wearing the same "Down with Sortition! Elections for @@NAME@@!" shirt or something. Besides, option 1 only works when the fraud is more obvious.

Also, I suggest hyphenating "randomly-selected candidates".

"I'll insure the parliament's composition will always align with your agenda."

That should be "ensure". If you "insure" something, it can still go wrong, you'll just receive an insurance payout when it does.

...Come to think of it, a "losing-the-election" insurance for politicians would be hilarious.

"Dear brother,"

You can't assume that @@LEADER@@ is male.

"Now, I know what you'll say, democratic elections are just as easy to rig. Blackacre proved it when they got that buffoon elected President of the United Federation. But at least we can pretend it was the will of the people!"

I'm not as vehemently opposed to speakers acknowledging the downsides of their positions as Candlewhisper Archive is, but this is really too much. (Plus, Candlewhisper Archive is an editor and I'm not.) Furthermore, the corrupt "pretend it was the will of the people" attitude is too similar to option 3, even worse because of all the bad words she had for him.

I have to say, though, a democracy will only be more subject to fraud. An election can be rigged both by voter fraud (cheating the bureaucracy to cast multiple votes when you're only supposed to be allowed one) and by the ballot-counters lying about the results, whereas sortition can be rigged only by the selection-committee (roughly analogous to the ballot-counters in responsibility and supervision), not just anyone. The one thing democracies have going for them is that you can recount the ballots and see if you get the same results (if the corrupt ballot-counters haven't just shredded and thrown out the ballots that were inconvenient to them), while with sortition rerunning the same lottery process will not give you the same result.

I kind of understand why you want a move-to-democracy option, since it normally makes sense to have a reversal option on an issue about an obscure policy like this, but I'm not sure it'll ever work. Issues don't always have reversal options, and we already have two direct sortition reversals (and several that reverse it incidentally without directly addressing problems with sortition), so it wouldn't be a big deal to just not have one this time.

Shame though, since I did like the effect line.

[Effect 4] @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ playing bingo these days demand to vote which numbers should be selected

[Great Robertia]

This seems to be a little hard to determine. Them being "chummy" could just be them being friendly people, rather than specifically already knowing the members of the selection committee. At the same time, who is "well-acquainted" with who is pretty hard to determine without an invasive spy network, since it's not like there are official records of that kind of thing.

I agree with why explicitly referring to them as "white men" was problematic, but I think you need to at least do something clearer, such as describing them as "all belonging to the ethnic majority" without specifying what that is, or having them all be famous business tycoons, or all wearing the same "Down with Sortition! Elections for @@NAME@@!" shirt or something. Besides, option 1 only works when the fraud is more obvious.

Well, it's what I initially had, a specific demographic that made up the entire parliament, which couldn't have happened naturally. But the feedback was that people looking alike for example wouldn't work and that a better option was to have the Parliament be filled with friends of the committee members for example.

So, I admit I am a little unsure what to do here now.

That should be "ensure". If you "insure" something, it can still go wrong, you'll just receive an insurance payout when it does.

...Come to think of it, a "losing-the-election" insurance for politicians would be hilarious.

Wow, big brainfart there! Of course it should be "ensure", why I didn't catch it myself is beyond me but ah well

You can't assume that @@LEADER@@ is male.

Of course, I think I accidentally swapped "sibling" and "brother" there while writing it. I'll mend it in the new draft, if the sister still appears there.

[Trotterdam]

Well, it's what I initially had, a specific demographic that made up the entire parliament, which couldn't have happened naturally. But the feedback was that people looking alike for example wouldn't work and that a better option was to have the Parliament be filled with friends of the committee members for example.

So, I admit I am a little unsure what to do here now.

Maybe wait for the input of a few other people.

Of course, I think I accidentally swapped "sibling" and "brother" there while writing it. I'll mend it in the new draft, if the sister still appears there.

Yeah, I noticed that you did use the gender-neutral "sibling" to refer to the character who's explicitly your brother...

[Great Robertia]

Maybe wait for the input of a few other people.

Probably a good idea! I'll wait with writing up the next draft until a few others also chip in don't get me wrong, the remarks you made are sound and good! Just want to get a few others views as well.

[Great Robertia]

A new draft has been put up! I have tweaked the premise to hopefully fit better and I have abandoned the idea of a Sorition reversal, instead adding something else that should fit with the idea of a lottocracy, I think

Please tell me how the issue draft looks now and what could still be improved upon!

[Australian rePublic]

Wait, wouldn't leader be also swapped in sortation?

[Great Robertia]

Wait, wouldn't leader be also swapped in sortation?

Nope, the description line of the Sortition policy is the following:

Parliamentarians are randomly selected.

According to this, Sortition only applies to the legislative body in the form of the nation's Parliament, not @@LEADER@@.

[Trotterdam]

The workings of @@LEADER@@ under sortition is something of an elephant in the room. Part of the game's premise is that the player always remains in control, no matter what happens. For autocracies that's logical. For democracies it can be justified as people constantly voting for you. For sortition... it's up to players to decide whether they want to roleplay actually swapping out their leaders or handwave it.

[Great Robertia]

The workings of @@LEADER@@ under sortition is something of an elephant in the room. Part of the game's premise is that the play always remains in control, no matter what happens. For autocracies that's logical. For democracies it can be justified as people constantly voting for you. For sortition... it's up to players to decide whether they want to roleplay actually swapping out their leaders or handwave it.

On top of that, the policy itself only describes Parliamentarians to be under the Sortition system, not any other government apparatus. As such, I always envisioned that the policy only affects the legislative body.

Also, Trotterdam, what do you think of the current premise? Does the "all leader's opponents" work for the obvious sortition fraud occurrence?

[Trotterdam]

Also, Trotterdam, what do you think of the current premise? Does the "all leader's opponents" work for the obvious sortition fraud occurrence?

Yeah, I think the issue is looking good now.

The one thing I might quibble with is the effect line for option 1, which concerns a very different type of "coincidence" than the one that is now in the issue premise, which could confuse people.

...Oh yeah, and the comma in option 3's effect line is problematic. Though the whole line could probably be funnier.

[Great Robertia]

Also, Trotterdam, what do you think of the current premise? Does the "all leader's opponents" work for the obvious sortition fraud occurrence?

Yeah, I think the issue is looking good now.

The one thing I might quibble with is the effect line for option 1, which concerns a very different type of "coincidence" than the one that is now in the issue premise, which could confuse people.

...Oh yeah, and the comma in option 3's effect line is problematic. Though the whole line could probably be funnier.

Done! New draft is up with amendments to the effect lines in question.

[Great Robertia]

I've taken the issue draft under a magnification glass and worked on it a bit!

Primarily I tried to shorten text lengths where possible and made a few minor tweaks. The biggest change is a new effect line for option 4, as I felt the previous one could be sharper. Let me know what you think!

[Australian rePublic]

Wait, wouldn't leader be also swapped in sortation?

Nope, the description line of the Sortition policy is the following:

Parliamentarians are randomly selected.

According to this, Sortition only applies to the legislative body in the form of the nation's Parliament, not @@LEADER@@.

Carry on

[Great Robertia]

Any more feedback on this issue? I am starting to feel confident about where this issue now stands, but perhaps there's something I still need to catch or attend to?

[Great Robertia]

I'm moving this issue to a Last Call, as I am satisfied with where the issue draft is currently at I am more than happy work in any last changes and then possibly look at submitting it after the weekend (unless of course new commentary will require the issue to be worked on more).

[Drasnia]

"How could this have happened?!" asks President of the Selection Committee @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, a little too excessively aghast. "The odds of this occurring naturally are simply astronomical! Now that we're caught-err, I mean, now that the issue has been caught, ahem, we'll declare the results of this drawing null and void and draw a new selection. If the same happens, we'll keep redrawing and rejecting until we have a parliament as random as a game of jackstraws!"

Presumably, NS's sortition policy only affects Parliament. I would think that the President of the Selection Committee would be either a person who has been proven time and again to be very trustworthy or someone appointed by you and as such is loyal to your party/cause. So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that they would be so obviously guilty of committing the fraud.

Solid draft. Good luck

[Great Robertia]

"How could this have happened?!" asks President of the Selection Committee @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, a little too excessively aghast. "The odds of this occurring naturally are simply astronomical! Now that we're caught-err, I mean, now that the issue has been caught, ahem, we'll declare the results of this drawing null and void and draw a new selection. If the same happens, we'll keep redrawing and rejecting until we have a parliament as random as a game of jackstraws!"

Presumably, NS's sortition policy only affects Parliament. I would think that the President of the Selection Committee would be either a person who has been proven time and again to be very trustworthy or someone appointed by you and as such is loyal to your party/cause. So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that they would be so obviously guilty of committing the fraud.

Solid draft. Good luck

Thank you!

It's a fair point, but then again, even someone appearing as very trusting could in fact have their own agenda contradictory to your own. Or, they have been bribed behind the screen with a really irresistible offer. It's all possible, I'd say It's also tied to the second speaker who doesn't entirely come across as clean either, as someone on the selection committee must have committed the selection fraud, especially in the case of rigging parliament to contain primary anti-@@LEADER@@ members, which would require the collaboration of multiple committee members, including its head.

[Drasnia]

Presumably, NS's sortition policy only affects Parliament. I would think that the President of the Selection Committee would be either a person who has been proven time and again to be very trustworthy or someone appointed by you and as such is loyal to your party/cause. So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that they would be so obviously guilty of committing the fraud.

Solid draft. Good luck

Thank you!

It's a fair point, but then again, even someone appearing as very trusting could in fact have their own agenda contradictory to your own. Or, they have been bribed behind the screen with a really irresistible offer. It's all possible, I'd say It's also tied to the second speaker who doesn't entirely come across as clean either, as someone on the selection committee must have committed the selection fraud, especially in the case of rigging parliament to contain primary anti-@@LEADER@@ members, which would require the collaboration of multiple committee members, including its head.

I think it's totally fair for someone to RP that that's what happened, but I think you've spelled it out a bit too explicitly.

a little too excessively aghast.

Is totally fine in my opinion.

Now that we're caught-err,

I think that's taking it a bridge too far. But then again, that's just my opinion.

Generally I'm a proponent for leaving a lot of room to the imagination. When you've got potentially tens of thousands of players who might receive the issue, you've got tens of thousands of different possible scenarios to account for. Like, it's totally okay to make some assumptions about nations when writing but it really needs to be in service to an important purpose.

[Great Robertia]

Thank you!

It's a fair point, but then again, even someone appearing as very trusting could in fact have their own agenda contradictory to your own. Or, they have been bribed behind the screen with a really irresistible offer. It's all possible, I'd say It's also tied to the second speaker who doesn't entirely come across as clean either, as someone on the selection committee must have committed the selection fraud, especially in the case of rigging parliament to contain primary anti-@@LEADER@@ members, which would require the collaboration of multiple committee members, including its head.

I think it's totally fair for someone to RP that that's what happened, but I think you've spelled it out a bit too explicitly.

a little too excessively aghast.

Is totally fine in my opinion.

Now that we're caught-err,

I think that's taking it a bridge too far. But then again, that's just my opinion.

Generally I'm a proponent for leaving a lot of room to the imagination. When you've got potentially tens of thousands of players who might receive the issue, you've got tens of thousands of different possible scenarios to account for. Like, it's totally okay to make some assumptions about nations when writing but it really needs to be in service to an important purpose.

Fair point! I'll leave in the excessively aghast bit but remove the "we're caught" part. The sentence will also flow better in addition thanks for the recommendation!