The British think tank Radix asked me to give an after-dinner speech to a conference of NGOs involved in promoting democracy which I delivered by teleconference.
Almost all democracies mix two approaches: representation by election and representation by sampling. But in modern politics, we’ve sidelined the latter, except in the judicial system. Elections don’t just select representatives; they shape the kind of people who rise to power. The system favours self-promotion, rewards spin, and turns politics into a competition for attention rather than a forum for governing. We assume elections will keep politicians accountable, but in practice, they reinforce a cycle where honesty is a liability and manipulating people takes priority.
Representation by sampling works differently. When people are selected by lottery to deliberate on political issues, they tend to engage with one another in ways that cut through party lines and ideological divides. I explore examples of how this has worked, from ancient Athens to modern citizen assemblies, and outline a proposal: a standing Citizens’ Assembly to sit alongside existing institutions, providing an independent check on government.
This isn’t about replacing elections, but about balancing them with another democratic principle—one we’ve neglected for too long. I mention a documentary on the establishment of the Michigan Independent Citizens’ Redistricting Commission which is here. And you can find the audio here.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
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 
The struggle of the suffragettes mentioned in the video succeeded because they were not trying to impose any kind of change on other people but simply asking for an individual right. In the same vein, sortitionists should ask for their individual right to political participation in the way they see fit, i.e. through sampling, and leave alone those of their fellow citizens who prefer to be represented through a vote for their party or candidate.
LikeLike
> This isn’t about replacing elections
But why?!
As you point out, elections are a horrible mechanism. Why would we want to keep them? “Electoral democracy” is an oxymoron.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Modesty — of several kinds.
None of us knows that much. As it develops, we’ll discover more foibles of sortition. We have very little experience of it. So I’m happy to proceed by seeing representation by sampling in competition with the dominant system of representation by election and I and everyone else can see more about the strengths and weaknesses of each system and their interaction.
On top of that intellectual modesty is political modesty. Since none of us have the power to replace one system with another, why make that what we ask for? Better to persuade people to introduce it into the existing system. Where that has been done alongside the existing system — for instance in East Belgium and Michigan — it has done no harm to speak of that I’m aware of, and done plenty of good.
The question arises even for you Yoram in this form. Assuming you don’t have absolute power how would you introduce sortition in some partial way into our existing system. Where would some modest sortition based tweak to the existing system do the most good?
LikeLike
It is one thing to say clearly that elections are anti-democratic and that our aim is to eliminate them altogether, but to do this in a gradual way as alternative institutions are being built up, and it is another to say that “this isn’t about replacing elections”. The former is very sensible, while the latter seems at best as not being candid and at worst as wanting to maintain elite power in society.
As for how to introduce sortition, this has been discussed on this blog many times before. The classic proposal of Callenbach and Phillips of replacing elections with sortition in one chamber out of two (or introducing an allotted chamber in systems that are currently unicameral) is sensible. More limited changes, that would probably meet with a lot of popular support, could involve setting up allotted bodies to handle areas where there is little confidence in elected bodies such as anti-corruption bodies or management of public resources.
It is important, however, that these proposals are made as part of a campaign that questions the legitimacy of elections as a matter of principle. As long as we accept that elections are the fundamental institution of democracy, or even a fundamental institution of democracy, we essentially legitimize the oligarchical status quo.
LikeLike
Nick: >None of us knows that much. As it develops, we’ll discover more foibles of sortition.
I’m struck by the close parallel between lottocratic and populist rhetoric on elite domination. If our goal is genuine popular sovereignty, then Peter Stone’s critique of lottocracy, discussed in the link below, is very pertinent. In the age of Trump, Orbán, Erdogan, Putin and Xi we need to be very clear what we are proposing.
https://sortition-agora.com/uncategorized/popular-rule-without-popular-sovereignty/
LikeLike
Thanks Keith, I’m not too sure what you’re arguing.
As interesting and eloquent as the discussion you link to is, it’s very theoretical. I’m not uninterested in theory, I just can’t properly relate it to practice until I see more.
My basic position is
So regarding the “goal of popular sovereignty”, that sounds nice, but it only comes into focus in terms of what institutions might take us closer to it.
LikeLike
I really really hate WordPress’s new interface. Anyway, having put the effort into learning how to produce a numbered list, the inset above comes out on my browser at least unnumbered — though it continues to be numbered in the WYSIWYG editor. Frustrating!
Apologies all.
PS: I tried with dot points, but with the same result.
LikeLike
You see further than me Yoram. Or think you do.
One thing that has been important in my thinking has been being involved in Rory Stewart’s campaign to become London Mayor. A sortition based standing citizen council was a central plank of his platform. In a meeting with staff they weren’t that keen on this as a plank of his campaign. I thought it was the usual gatekeeping motive. It wasn’t their idea. But they knew something I didn’t. The idea had been focus grouped and no-one knew what the promise was. They said “we don’t need another committee”.
That experience and my own experience around politics has led me to believe that seeking to convert one of the chambers to sortition cannot be done because the system itself will simply block it and the people won’t insist on it.
Which is why I’ve suggested a privately funded standing citizen assembly. It has no power, but it has visibility and it can campaign for power if and when it wishes.
LikeLike
Nick: >Contemporary (electoral) democracy as it exists is seriously dysfunctional.
Sure, we can all agree on that. But in our new age of populist autocracy it’s fanciful to believe that the autocrat will accept another check/balance lying down, unless it can be proved to be another incarnation of the plethos. Ultimately either the demos or the tyrannos has kratos, hence Peter’s insistence on popular sovereignty. It’s disappointing that this issue is not being tackled head-on by deliberative democrats (it doesn’t appear to be on Helene’s list of desiderata).
As for theory, I agree with Alex Kovner’s comment that Hobbes provides a more robust model for popular sovereignty than Rousseau. Just look closely at the Leviathan frontispiece.
LikeLike
This is not a matter of seeing farther but simply calling a spade a spade. Elections are an oligarchical mechanism and should be recognized as such. Tactics are not to be dismissed, but they cannot be a substitute to a realistic understanding of the political and institutional situation.
As for “not needing another committee”: That is also a matter of tactics. I think there is a very good chance that if the allotted body is to sit as an anti-corruption court judging the elected on matters of ethics then you will find that it does very well in the focus groups.
LikeLike