Name: 該找隨機選出的人來取代政治人物嗎？- Michael Vazquez (Should we replace politicians with randomly selected people? - Michael Vazquez)
Uploaded: 2026-03-19T22:33:33.000Z
Duration: 6 min 41 s
Description: 【看影片學英語】數萬部 YouTube 影片，搭配英漢字典即點即查，輕鬆掌握單字發音與用法，長久累積看電影不必再看字幕。

Elections, often called the cornerstone of democracy, are tools that ensure a nation's citizens all have an equal political voice.

選舉，常被稱為民主的基石，是確保國家公民都擁有平等政治發聲權的工具。

But these so called great equalizers have long been plagued by corruption, partisan divides and uninformed voters.

但這些所謂偉大的平等化者長期以來飽受腐敗、黨派分歧和無知的選民之苦。

Which is why some of democracy's first and most famous practitioners used a different approach.

這就是為什麼一些最早也最著名的民主實踐者採取了不同的方法。

From 508 to 322 BCE, Athens increasingly moved away from elected officials outside specialized positions like military generals and senior finance officers.

從西元前 508 年到 322 年，雅典越來越遠離選出軍事將領和高級財務官員等專業職位以外的官員。

Most legislative, executive and judicial roles were appointed via lottery.

大部分的立法、行政和司法職位都是通過抽籤任命的。

Starting at age 30, citizens could place a token with their name into an allotment machine.

從 30 歲開始，公民就可以將帶有他們名字的代幣放入分配機。

These machines appointed citizens to government positions through a process designed to ensure randomness and prevent fraud.

這些分配機透過一個旨在確保隨機性和防止欺詐的過程，將公民任命到政府職位。

Before getting the job chosen, candidates underwent a public examination to investigate their character and those that passed would typically serve for a single year.

在獲得選定的職位之前，候選人會接受公開考試，以審查他們的品格，通過者通常只會任職一年。

When their term ended, they underwent another public review to investigate their conduct and financial dealings while in office.

任期結束後，他們會接受另一次公開審查，以調查他們在任期間的行為和財務往來。

This system was called sortition and its goal was to promote political equality.

這個系統稱為抽籤制，其目標是促進政治平等。

In fact, Athenians saw lotteries as more democratic than voting, since they believed elections favored the wealthy and well connected.

事實上，雅典人認為抽籤比投票更民主，因為他們相信選舉有利於富人和有權勢的人。

Random appointees, on the other hand, were ordinary citizens stepping up to fulfill their civic duty.

另一方面，隨機任命的都是普通公民，他們挺身而出履行公民義務。

And since most offices didn't allow repeat terms, sortition prevented people from gaining too much political influence.

而且由於大多數職位不允許連任，抽籤制可以防止人們獲得過多的政治影響力。

Of course, this system was far from perfect.

Athenian sortition excluded women, foreign born residents and enslaved peoples.

雅典的抽籤制排除了女性、外籍居民和被奴役的人。

And as philosophers like Plato and Aristotle pointed out, political decision making requires expertise, a quality that's difficult to develop in short appointments and can't be guaranteed by random selection.

正如柏拉圖和亞里斯多德等哲學家指出的那樣，政治決策需要專業知識，這是在短期任命中難以培養的品質，也無法保證隨機選擇。

But broadly, this lottery based system had strong public support.

但總體而言，這個基於抽籤的系統得到了公眾的廣泛支持。

It was the dominant form of democracy during Athens golden age, and

它是雅典黃金時代主要的民主形式，

it only truly ended when Athens conquerors abolished democracy altogether.

直到雅典的征服者徹底廢除民主制度後才真正結束。

So if sortition provided stability, then could it do so now?

那麼，如果抽籤制能帶來穩定，它現在也能嗎？

Political philosopher Alex Guerrero thinks it could.

政治哲學家 Alex Guerrero 認為有可能。

And he's even proposed a modern American version of sortition that he calls lotocracy.

他甚至提出了一個他稱為「抽籤治國」的現代美國版抽籤制度。

Rather than relying on one decision making body for every issue, Guerrero proposes multiple assemblies, each dedicated to a specific policy area.

Guerrero 建議設立多個專責特定政策領域的議會，而不是依賴單一決策機構來處理所有問題。

These single issue lottery selected legislatures or SILs, are made up of hundreds of randomly chosen citizens who get trained in their assembly's topic area by experts and advocates.

這些單一議題、透過抽籤選出的立法機關（SILs），由數百名隨機選出的公民組成，他們會在該議會的特定領域接受專家和倡導者的培訓。

Then, after consulting with the public to get their perspective, the members of a CIL draft and vote on on topic specific policies.

然後，在諮詢公眾並聽取他們的觀點後，SIL 成員會起草並投票決定特定議題的政策。

This system extends all the way to the top, distributing even the powers of the presidency across a network, lottery filled executive assemblies and the administrative officials they appoint.

這個系統一路延伸到最高層，將總統的權力分配給由抽籤產生的行政議會網絡以及他們任命的行政官員。

Advocates of Lottocracy believe it could address three of the biggest problems facing modern democracies.

抽籤治國的支持者認為，它可以解決現代民主面臨的三大難題。

First, Unequal representation Since successful election campaigns require money and influence, many elected officials are much wealthier than the average voter.

第一，代表性不均。由於成功的競選活動需要金錢和影響力，許多選出的官員比一般選民富有得多。

At Various points from 2014 to 2025, half of US Congress members were millionaires.

在 2014 年到 2025 年的各個時期，美國國會有一半的成員是百萬富翁。

Problem 2 most candidates rely on donations from individuals, corporations, and

許多候選人依賴個人、企業和特殊利益團體的捐款，這些團體可能會試圖影響他們的政策。

special interest groups who may try to influence their policies.

抽籤治國透過避免選舉、提供被任命者優渥的薪酬，並實施較短的任期限制，讓影響力更難被收買。

Lotocracy makes influence harder to buy by avoiding elections, offering appointees generous compensation, and enforcing shorter term limits.

第三個問題是政策制定能力不足。

The third problem is a lack of policy making competence.

職業政客們在無數複雜議題上應付著數十項政策提案，但 SIL 則讓其成員專精於單一主題。

While career politicians juggle dozens of policy proposals on countless complicated issues, sils let their members become experts in a single topic.

就像你預期的那樣，這個激進的提議引來了批評。

As you would expect, this radical proposal has critics.

政治理論家 Cristina Lafont 和 Nadia Urbinati 認為，抽籤治國要求大多數公民服從隨機選出的一小群人。

Political theorists Cristina Lafont and Nadia Urbinati argue that lottocracy asks most citizens to defer to a randomly chosen few.

他們相信民主應該讓公民行使政治自由。

They believe that democracies should allow citizens to exercise political freedom.

作為平等者的自由和選舉是其中的核心。

Freedom as equals and elections are central to that.

Elections let people set the political agenda, and

they bind office holders to a continuing cycle of accountability, both at the polls and in the public eye.

它們讓官員們持續處於被監督的循環中，無論是在投票時還是在大眾的目光下。

In their view, voting is how citizens collectively shape and limit public power, and

在她們看來，投票是公民集體塑造和限制公共權力的方式，

without it, even the most competent lottocratic government could feel like rule by experts.

沒有了投票，即使是最有能力的抽籤治國政府，也可能讓人感覺像是專家在統治。

Without elections, it can be hard to say what makes a system democratic.

沒有了選舉，很難說什麼樣的制度才算是民主。

But this debate highlights a shared goal.

但這場辯論凸顯了一個共同的目標。

We all want institutions that serve everyone and address real problems.

我們都希望有能夠為所有人服務並解決實際問題的機構。

And just like every other element of democracy, it's up to us to keep experimenting until we find a system that achieves those ideals.

就像民主的每一個其他元素一樣，我們必須不斷嘗試，直到找到一個能實現這些理想的制度。

Watch these videos to either challenge what you think you know or learn more about what you don't.

觀看這些影片，挑戰你既有的想法，或深入瞭解你不知道的知識。