We all know what lottocracy means: Sample Sovereignty. In other words, the elevation of a representative sample of the whole community to legislative seats, replacing elected legislators.
The case for this replacement seems strong:
Per Rousseau, there is less of a “representative” interference between the whole body and the legislators, meaning the General Will is more truly ensconced, and its actions more democratically legitimate.
Democracy means the rule of the considered common sense of the community. But a mass-electoral system gives each voter such a tiny influence on election results that most pay little consideration to political affairs. And an electoral system implies party government, which roils the waters and impairs considered consideration of the issues. And the influence of professional party politicians, pelf (money), propaganda, and the press (more generally, the media) further shapes and restricts the democratic dialogue. This is only a partial list of the demerits of what I call DeMockery (a mockery of democracy). Many others have noted them too.
The public, according to polling, seems disillusioned to an unprecedented level with DeMockery and ready for a change.
And yet there have been no powerful movements toward full lottocracy. Only randomly chosen advisory entities have been created. (And even they have shown flaws, as in Ireland recently.) The public and public intellectuals apparently need a strong inducement to move beyond today’s mass-electoral system.
The public does not want to give up its right to express itself by voting—that is the heart of their reluctance. But the outcome of public-level “approval voting” can be a base from which randomly chosen citizens are chosen as lottocrats, or as proxy electors. I call this combination of balloting and a lottery-drawing from its outcome a “ballotery.” (Under it, each citizen would have the right to nominate five (say) persons. Persons who received too many nominations would be suspected of campaigning and eliminated by the computer. The intent is to mirror that of the Founders, who wanted the office to seek the man, not the man seek the office—at least the presidential office. Their electoral college electors were not supposed to campaign on the basis of being pledged to any candidate.
The “agency” to freely nominate friends as legislators or electors, instead of being forced to choose between a pair of professional politicians, should make approval voting appealing to many among the public. It should seem more democratic. “Democracy starts with you” would be a slogan that would resonate with them—as it should.
This new base would draw its legitimacy from its having been selected by the mass public. It is theoretically a base with a very different appeal to legitimacy. This is likely to offend lottocrats to whom the statistical mirroring of the whole population is of the essence.
But the public (if I am a good sample of it) would disdain an exact sample of the whole as containing too many crooks, cranks, and crazies, and too few diamonds in the rough. Its approval voting filter would tend to exclude more of the former and include more of the latter. (Note that the poor and minorities would still be adequately represented since they would tend to vote for their fellows. If not, a correction could, if absolutely necessary, be made post hoc.)
As for public intellectuals, Christina Lafont’s 2020 book, Democracy Without Shortcuts, claims that a system like lottocracy that takes away her vote is illegitimate. Judging by the reviews in the academic journals she has persuaded her colleagues of this—not that many of them likely needed much persuasion.
Sortitionists take note—please! Ballottocracy is a breakthrough creative compromise that enables citizen rule and bypasses objections to a pure lottocracy. Please copy and paste this elsewhere, as well as a link to my book, Demiocracy.
I now venture into my particular variety of random rule, Demiocracy, which would further weaken opposition to random-citizen rule.
Another group opposed to lottocracy is political activists and participants. These are people who currently counsel candidates, affect public opinion, etc. They are left out in the cold by lottocracy. Unless those drawn by the lot from approval voting are only electors, as under my Demiocracy. In that case they would still be able to counsel candidates and actually be candidates themselves. Especially if legislation were conveniently conducted over the internet. They could thus become champions of random rule instead of opponents.
It would be much easier for them, as citizens with full-time jobs in most cases, to serve as officeholders if their duties were limited to a specific topical domain—to 5% of the disputes that occupy an elected all-topic legislature. IOW, to the matters that are dealt with by the currently existing topic-dedicated standing committees on health, education, justice, etc. I call these Demi-legislatures. Only if they are employed can the job of legislation, and of legislative oversight by electors, be small enough for true, continuous, adequate, ordinary-citizen-based rule—i.e., democracy—to occur. (Self-) Divide and rule!
Filed under: Academia, Elections, Participation, Proposals, Sortition |
Adam Cronkright
Ali
Ahmed R. Teleb
avanderven
avergne
Alex Kovner
azakaras
Brett Hennig
campbellwallace
Simon Threlkeld
Nick Coccoma
codyhipskind
Common Lot Sortitionist
Conall Boyle
constitutionalism
davidschecter
graytmatter
gtridimas
H.J. Hofkirchner
John Burnheim
jgarry20151
Jochen Krattenmacher
johnedwardtaylor
johnhuang865
Jonathan Crock
keithsutherland
Jacob Richter
kkoreilly
lukewhito
SimonPek
Nathan El
Nicholas Gruen
Owen Shaffer
Patrick Chalmers
Paul Gölz
peterstone
Pierre-Etienne Vandamme
pronfeld
Emil
rcaze
richwbrown
Roger Knights
roslynfuller
Pierre-Etienne Vandamme
shaharavin
tbouricius
Ted Wachtel
Joshua Laferriere
theodorestathis
towardsautonomyblog
Wayne Liebman
Yoram Gat
Oliver Milne
Equality by lot 
Hrs a link to my book Demiocracy : https://1drv.ms/w/c/80e697e38b9451de/Ed5RlIvjl-YggIA2AQAAAAABYL7yDj3XHPxOzRp3xRr35w
LikeLike
I’m not sure carving a place for the political class is a feature. Seems to me it would defeat the whole purpose.
The political class is the problem. The whole point is to take power from them.
LikeLike
I hope I’ve logged in now and my reply will go through. I don’t know what I did wrong the last time.
Deepdark103 wrote: “I’m not sure carving a place for the political class is a feature. Seems to me it would defeat the whole purpose.
The political class is the problem. The whole point is to take power from them.”
That criticism does not apply to ballottocracy, which occupies almost 90% of my post and is the “must” portion of it, as far as advancing random-citizen rule goes.
In my version of a system beyond ballottocracy to empower random citizens, called Demiocracy, I elevate citizens only to the role of electors, not legislators. This is a less radical change, which should make it more acceptable. It is in line with the Founders vision for their electoral college, another plus as far as acceptance goes.
In particular it doesn’t evict current political “players” from their roles as advisers, researchers, candidates, etc. This should vastly diminish their opposition to a random rule regime. It should even induce a portion of the political class to agitate for random rule, if they see it offering better opportunities for them to promote their points of view. For example, advocates of minority views would have a chance at addressing the entire electorate, instead of being marginalized.
Current members of the political class are not all evil. Many are doing the best they can under an imperfect system. The effect of their actions, unfortunately, is to sustain that imperfect system.
I cannot see the populace tossing out the existing system and replacing it root and branch with something from Greek antiquity. That is an intoxicating dream.
I CAN see the fed up population of some city or state agreeing to a referendum whereby they would hand over their electoral power to proxy electors, selected quasi randomly by themselves. (I.e., via the ballottery.)
I do not believe that random rule will replace mass-elections unless a gradual transition path away from the latter is offered. Without such a path, mass-elected houses of parliament will remain as muddiers of the waters and as obstacles to random-citizen legislation.
LikeLike
https://www.electionbyjury.org/
LikeLiked by 2 people
The above advocates for election by jury, which random-citizen jury is given special time to examine the issues and candidates, as opposed to election by all, which are not. Of course I favor such Proxy Electorates
LikeLike
Continuing my reply above:
But to make Proxy Electorates politically acceptable, their members must not be drawn from All, but from those among the All who have received ballots by the All, in proportion to the number of ballots they have received. This is my “Ballottocracy.”
In this way electors can be said to have been legitimately elected to their positions, and the publc can have been given a voice in their makeup. And voters among the All will have the satisfaction of balloting for persons known to them, instead of professional politicians. They will not be happy if their ballot is taken away from them.
LikeLike
>Per Rousseau, there is less of a “representative” interference between the whole body and the legislators, meaning the General Will is more truly ensconced, and its actions more democratically legitimate.
Interesting. In a forthcoming paper (Journal of Sortition, 1, No.1) I argue that a sortition-based legislature would not contravene Rousseau’s strictures on popular sovereignty:
Keith Sutherland, Deliberation and Sovereignty: The Rousseauian Case for Sortition
Abstract: The model of democratic representation proposed in this paper is (paradoxically) derived from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau is best known for his contempt for political representation, arguing instead that popular sovereignty cannot be delegated to representatives without compromising the moral equality of all citizens required by the social contract. This obliged him to propose a system of direct popular sovereignty that was ideally suited for small political communities like Geneva or Corsica and (arguably) of little relevance to large-scale modern states.
This paper proposes a radical alternative for the composition of the sovereign legislature — sortition. Although the mechanism originated in classical Athens, it has potential for application in large modern states. Moreover, unlike electoral representation, a large ‘minipopulus’ would not contravene Rousseau’s strictures on popular sovereignty, so long as the assembly followed his call for inner (silent) deliberation, followed by voting. Active political functions, like policy proposal and advocacy, would be delegated to the physical branch of government, constituted by different principles. This paper argues that a legislature constituted by sortition would enable decision-making without the alienation of popular sovereignty, as the ‘collective being’ of the sovereign would be represented (in microcosm) ‘by himself’ (SC, II:1). The paper is at odds with many deliberative democrats as it agrees with Hobbes and Rousseau that (active) deliberation and sovereignty are antipathetic, and that the former is the prerogative of the delegated government. The paper also considers the argument for a referendum-based ‘sleeping sovereign’ but concludes with Dahl (1989) that an ‘attentive’ minipopulus would be a better alternative.
LikeLike
Hi Keith. Here’s more of my Rousseau-related material, from chapter 1B of my book Demiocracy, which can be found online at https://1drv.ms/w/c/80e697e38b9451de/Ed5RlIvjl-YggIA2AQAAAAABYL7yDj3XHPxOzRp3xRr35w
Chapter 1B: The (Mass-Electoral) System Is the Problem
It’s been famously said that the general will cannot be represented—only a factionalizing “will of all.” And it’s been found, after man tore free, that Rousseau’s warning was correct:
Rousseau’s fears about representative institutions are everywhere confirmed within the politics of power: Leaders, players or actors become isolated from an audience. —Robert J. Pranger, The Eclipse of Citizenship, 1968, 27
However, the general will can be incarnated in the State—“virtually” incarnated—by inserting a small, or “demitasse,” sample from the whole population. “Demiocracy” is the name I’ve adopted for this Demi-incarnated democracy.
It is rational to use a sample when using the whole would be impossible, awkward, or undesirable. We use a sample as juries for those reasons. Likewise, we use samples in focus groups, in surveys of TV viewership, and in opinion polling
LikeLike
Agree 100%. In my paper I draw a loose analogy with Burke’s notion of virtual representation, which he believed was better than the real thing (parliamentary constituencies). Your notion of “incarnation” captures it perfectly (c.f. Ober’s notion of synecdochical representation). Of course one needs to take on board Rousseau’s strictures regarding deliberation. I’m keen to have your feedback on my paper when it’s published.
LikeLike
Comment on Roger Knights
By Theodore Stathis (theodorestathis)
The status quo in our days is the party government. The change of this status quo in most countries will require changes in their constitutions and changes of constitutions can begin only with the approval of the present political status quo. Are you sure the present political establishment will agree with your suggested changes. My experience (I spent 15 years as a member of parliament and I served in three ministerial positions) is that it will not agree. My first book on democracy in the Greek language circulated 2015 and it was followed by a new version titled The Trojan Horse of Democracy, its English version circulated in the US with a title A Therapy for Dying Democracies. The book in the Greek Language was presented to different public gatherings and in all presentations the commentators were members of parliament and none of those agreed with the suggested changes, even though my proposed political system is based on the party government (see my paper on this site titled Restarting Democracy to get a very good idea of my proposal)! So let us be aware of that reality, unless you have in mind some form of a revolution through which you will impose the changes.
My proposal’s concept is (a) start with what you have and what we have are political parties (b) make sure that the change can be accomplished by a peaceful means and (c) the change can be done without the need of constitutional changes. The only constrain attached to this project is that one can start a new political party. Now most versions of the republican system of government, which circulate, also, with the misnomer democracy, do allow the formation of new parties. Its versions serving dictatorial governments are not conducive to such niceties.
The republican system of government is based on one fundamental principle: the protection of the public interest, so whoever is in power the public interest acquires his interpretation. That is why Putin’s plans are served very well by some republican version and all republican versions are served by the instrument of elections of political officers, in order for big capital to be in the position to control the politicians, by satisfying their money needs for election and reelection. Democracy’s fundamental principle is isokratia, which means that every member of the community has equal power. The instrument for selecting political officers for one term only is the use of lottery. For this reasons the two systems of government have nothing in common.
Now, coming to the lottery, I observe that it has become a medicine for every illness. This kind of use of the lottery has increased the number of polemics for an instrument that its use and only its use can assure the obtaining of a democratic representation, which the republican system, objectively, cannot. The inventors of this tool had attach to it certain constraints, so that the legislation members would be in the position to fulfill the requirements of the job. The same has to be done today. The equal power requirement of the fundamental principle of democracy is being put to work in the local party organization (maximum one hundred members). There exist the conditions for direct democracy to work without any problem. At the local level the party members have absolute power to determine the existing problems in their neighborhood to be solved.
My proposal leads to transformation of autarchic political parties with bosses to democratically operating ones with collusion and money needs totally out of the picture. Money for operation of political parties comes only from the government budged. An existing party in Greece is now preparing to transform itself by adopting my proposal. For more details I refer you to my paper on this site: Restarting Democracy or to thedorestathis.gr and of course to my book: A Therapy for Dying Democracies.
LikeLike
Theodore: what is your response to Michels’ (1911) argument that political parties are inherently oligarchic? If he is right, then democracy only occurs between, rather than within, the party.
LikeLike
Michels’ argument is nothing more than an extrapolation of the argument that human nature cannot be changed, which is true. However, we are not trying to change human nature, we only try to change the behavior of a human being and extend this to the whole society and this can be achieved. For example, even though the principle of the capitalistic mode of production is at work internationally implying the result everybody for himself, we do notice that people in different countries behaving differently. This is so because different rules are at work. So Michels’ argument is not valid for what we are trying to do. What we are trying to do is to change the ways people can satisfy their needs. Democracy can do this.
LikeLike
From Theodore Stathis
the previous comment is made by Theodore Stathis.
I did not mean to state it as anonymous.
LikeLike
Theodore,
I [Keith Sutherland] can’t seem to sign in either. Your proposal for the new party is max 100 members at the local level and state funding? My question is, how would you ensure this ensured a democratic ecosystem that reflected public preferences.
LikeLike
From Theodore to Keith
I am sorry, I am not sure I understand your question. Could you please add something more to it so I will understand what you have in mind?
LikeLike
Theodore Stathis’ answer to Keith’s question to Theodore Stathis
I waited for Keith to make his answer more clear to me, but so far I have not receivedanything. So I decided to answer according to what I understand from his question.
The objective of pushing for democracy is to take money, out of politics (a) for freing politician from its dependence, (b) for giving the opportunity to none rich citizen, who have no sponsors, to get involved in politics, (c) for making politics less expensive for the citizens, who at the end pay the bill!
LikeLike
Georgia has used election by jury in several elections, and in all 159 counties going back to its colonial days.
https://www.electionbyjury.org/learn-more/ebj-in-practice
LikeLike