Equality by lot

A little more than a year ago, Adam Grant offered sortition to the readers of The New York Times. Now Daniel Pink offers it to the readers of the The Washington Post. Interestingly, and encouragingly in terms of the foothold that the idea of sortition may now have gained, Pink writes that he is merely echoing proposals made by readers whose ideas for “improving our country, our organizations or our lives” were solicited by the Post.

On Election Day, we affirm with our actions an unspoken principle of governance: The fairest and most democratic way to determine who wields public power is by asking citizens to cast ballots.

But what if there’s an alternative — not autocracy or monarchy but a more radical form of democratic representation and popular sovereignty?

“Why not make serving in Congress like jury duty?” asks a reader in Salt Lake City. “If you meet the criteria, you could be selected to serve for a term, which would give a broader cross-section of people representing regular Americans.”

The article is typical in the sense that instead of engaging with arguments previously made it merely repeats such previous arguments, even when these were addressed and refuted. (And even if they are transparently self-contradictory.)

It’s a bit nutty — complicated and replete with unintended consequences. But first, let’s examine its virtues.

At the top of the list is a mind-rattling but surprisingly convincing argument: Assigning legislators randomly is more equitable and democratic than choosing them through elections. Think about it. Only a tiny sliver of citizens have the time, money, connections and wherewithal to wage a congressional campaign.

Except, like all well-intentioned reforms, this one risks uncorking a spray of new problems. Take expertise. In general, the lottery-chosen citizen legislators won’t have much of it. Yet they’ll be tackling complex issues such as climate change, terrorism and artificial intelligence — and appropriating a $6 trillion budget that reaches every corner of American life.

Where will these bewildered amateurs — dog walkers, retired crossing guards, newspaper columnists — turn to for policy briefings and legislative savvy?

Enter those supposedly banished special interests, who are suddenly the most experienced and knowledgeable inhabitants of the newly remade ecosystem. Want to understand energy policy, new Congressman? The fossil fuel industry will happily supply you a briefing and maybe a steak dinner. Health-care reform, Madame Congresswoman? Come with our association to Cabo to hear why medical malpractice lawsuits keep America healthy. In an effort to drain the swamp, sortition risks turning lobbyists into apex predators who’ll feast on these baby alligators.

Ah – those naive and childish citizens, being hopelessly manipulated by lobbyists. Evidently the author thinks that he himself and his audience are not as easily manipulated. They understand well that listening to the lobbyists would be a bad idea. It’s only those who do not read The Washington Post that are too stupid to realize that.

Unsurprisingly, most of the commenters are hostile to sortition – again offering knee-jerk, easily refuted, transparently elitist arguments. A lifetime of indoctrination, together with the self-selection of being a reader of an elite newspaper (whose motto is “Democracy Dies in Darkness”), create an audience to many of whom democracy means elite rule. In our society, which is so obsessed with “democracy”, the idea of having people in power is for quite a few people, almost literaly unthinkable.

Filed under: Elections, Press, Sortition |