This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Randomocracy

Original research. --Tabor 8 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)
- Delete or, nn. Nothing related on google, nor have I ever heard this term in a political science context. -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
  - Nothing related on google? Suggest spell-checking search term.
    - three minutes yielded..."A relatively recent proposal (with very old roots) is that instead of electing representatives, we might have them chosen at random. (Mueller, Tollison, and Willet, Dahl) This has been called Randomocracy." [emphasis mine]from http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/personal/wkpaps/gildf/gild2.html
- Delete: Original research, a proposal/manifesto for someone's dorm room philosophy. Geogre 8 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
- Delete. Someone seems to have written an unpublished book about this [http://209.200.81.6/BCEF/randomocracy.htm here] in relation to some electoral reform in British Columbia. Given that it is apparently unpublished (the site is in the first person for orders etc. and Amazon don't carry it), this is WP:NOR and possibly POV given the context. Possibly also a copyvio from the book, but not able to tell. Finally, it admits to being a nelogism [http://209.200.81.6/BCEF/index.htm here]: "a random word, an obvious neologism". If someone can show that it is actually an established political doctrine in British Columbia I would, of course, change my vote. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)
  - It was used once in BC to select representatives from each electoral district. These citizens crafted and selected a proposal for electoral reform. (It failed in the referendum with only 58% voting 'yes') maclean25 08:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    - No, it was not. The process used for the BC Citizens Assembly was Sortition. Uncle G 15:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  - The book is published, and available from, e.g., http://www.munrobooks.com/by_isbn.cfm?view=DETAILS&isbn=0973782900, is there a requirement that something be carried by a particular vendor? the use of the word is referenced in http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/personal/wkpaps/gildf/gild2.html Geoffrey Transom
- I reached into a hat and randomly selected "delete" as my vote in this VfD. -- BDAbramson ^talk July 8, 2005 04:21 (UTC)
- Delete This is not in use anywhere as far as I can find.--Nahallac Silverwinds July 8, 2005 14:43 (UTC)
- Delete as per Splash.-Poli 2005 July 8 14:49 (UTC)
- Kept because I think it's an informative article. Maybe someone else should rewrite though to avoid breaking the original research rule. --FFAFRoxorzMyBoxorz 8 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
- Delete, rewriting will not help with respect to "original research" - it is otherwise not notable outside of Wikipedia. StuartH 8 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. I've seen the concept of selecting government officeholders by lottery before (it's common enough in science fiction), but never under this name, and never with the other features specified in this article. --Carnildo 8 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)
- Keep or redirect to something with a better title. The idea is not new but the title is. --maclean25 08:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- The idea that Maclean25 is conflating this with is Sortition. This is, however, not sortition. It is an expansion of that notion to include, for starters, an economic ideology and a criticism of partisanship (two of the the "other features" that Carnildo notes). The article is a reasonably clear attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote a novel concept, and indeed a book. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 15:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  - As the originator of this Wiki entry, I can tell you that although I've read the book, I have no interest whatsoever in promoting it; asserting as much without the slightest scintilla of evidence is reprehensible - a genuinely gutter act. Also, as anyone who has read their Aristotle will tell you, sortition explicity (as a theory) deals with partisanship, and Mueller, Tollison & Willet's 1972 article (Representative Democracy via Random Selection) in Public Choice embeds it in economic doctrine.Geoffrey Transom :The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.