Each gets longer and more detailed, as I defend my position. If length and details are a problem for you, then we'd better end the discussion here.

me: "This is actually why bribes to randomly selected citizens would be easier to catch."

you: "you said that it would be easy to catch the people taking this style of bribe"

I said easier. You misquoted me as saying easy. Easier != easy. We're comparing sortition to the current electoral system. Sortition just has to be better, it doesn't have to be perfect. Moreover, I said, "Many elected politicians have been criminally convicted of corruption", so it's not in fact impossible.

> now you’re trying to argue a separate issue: whether reps will take these bribes at all

> however, your initial comment assumes that they might take these bribes, and my reply is based on that assumption. when you abandon that assumption, you’re not actually responding to me

This is a misunderstanding. Of course some legislators (I won't call them "reps") might accept bribes. The problem is when some don't. When you're trying to bribe a bunch of random strangers, the number who don't accept bribes, even if the number is small, will blow up the whole bribery system and will send the bribers to jail.

Even if there's some level of bribery in sortition — which I believe can't be high, for reasons explained earlier — it would be vastly better than the current electoral system, which is legalized bribery via campaign contributions.