EqualityByLot Contributors: Can your contributions be used for sortition GPTs?

Posted on September 29, 2025 by Jochen Krattenmacher

I am currently working on building a custom GPT with expertise in sortition. I am not an AI expert: I am simply using the custom GPT feature by ChatGPT, where I am adding a knowledge base consisting of texts about sortition. That’s it – plus a few basic instructions to inform the GPT’s behavior. You can find up-to-date links to the GPT on my homepage, as well as information on its knowledge base and instructions.

The idea is simple:

  1. For newcomers: anyone curious about lottocracy can ask it questions (e.g., “What are the historical precedents?”, “What about experts?”), and get helpful answers.
  2. For advocates: it can also help us – the people already convinced – by generating talking points, suggesting how to respond to objections, or adapting explanations to different audiences. In short: a digital sparring partner to sharpen our arguments and make advocacy easier.

The purpose is not to replace discussion, but to lower barriers: to make it easier for newcomers to quickly get informed, and to give advocates a 24/7 assistant in the work of making the advantages of sortition more broadly known. The GPT is and will always be freely accessible (no charge).

Equality by Lot is a rich public archive of arguments related to sortition. Being able to use this knowledge for a sortition GPT obviously would be helpful.

That’s why I would like to ask:

Would contributors here be comfortable with their posts being used as part of the knowledge base for such a (freely accessible) GPT?

Of course, if anyone prefers their posts not to be included, that will be respected. If you do not indicate your agreement (either here in the comments or via email), I won’t include them. Since I do not want to monopolize this space, it would be helpful if you could also make clear whether your agreement is only in respect to my project or in respect to any freely available sortition advocacy GPT.

Just to stress this point: I believe the best way forward is to make the data broadly available so that any sortition advocate can create their own version of a Sortition GPT. Again, I am not an AI expert, but I suspect that there would be value in tailoring GPTs to local contexts. One person might want a model fine-tuned for the German-speaking world. Another might prefer a version focused on Athenian democracy, or on contemporary citizens’ assemblies and empirical research.

Of course, any feedback or thoughts on this project are highly welcome!

Filed under: Sortition | Tagged: , , , , | 8 Comments »

Activists blast the “the anti-democratic ‘sortition’ method”

Posted on September 27, 2025 by Yoram Gat

The “World Socialist Web Site” has a report about a recent rally in which Zarah Sultana, a co-founder of YourParty, spoke. The piece goes into some detail about the infighting in YourParty and mentions the sortition issue.

Tina Becker, from the “Why Marx?” group and a member of the Your Party “proto-branch” in Sheffield, asked Sultana about the anti-democratic “sortition” method being imposed by Corbyn’s “Organising Committee” to select delegates to the founding conference. Becker explained it meant “We can’t put forward motions, we can’t put forward amendments. There will be a lottery system to choose delegates.” She asked Sultana, “Should the regional meetings be able to vote and have amendments? Should we not be the ones who decide how Your Party should be run and not the six MPs, and what are you trying to do to change that?”

Sultana replied, “I too am quite critical of sortition, but that is what has been announced for the conference, and so we need to make sure it’s democratic. And I think there’s a way to still do that.”

Her remarks made clear there would be no organised challenge to Corbyn’s anti-democratic stitch-up. She did not and could not explain how delegates randomly selected based on “gender, region and background” could be “made democratic”. Sortition is being employed to block members from exercising democratic control, preventing them from nominating delegates who are accountable and who best reflect their views, suppressing any political challenge to Corbyn’s (and Sultana’s) unelected cliques.

Filed under: Press, Proposals, Sortition | 5 Comments »

Sortition in YourParty

Posted on September 22, 2025 by Yoram Gat

YourParty is an attempt to create a new left-wing party in the UK. The attempt seems to be in a lot a trouble due to infighting. One of the causes, or perhaps the symptoms, of the infighting is a struggle around the idea of employing sortition for selecting delegates to the founding conference of the party. This idea may have originated in, or at least given a non-negligible push by, a proposal made by Edmund Griffiths.

The official website of YourParty says:

In November, thousands of in-person founding conference delegates will be chosen by lottery to ensure a fair balance of gender, region, and background. These delegates will have a big responsibility – to debate the founding documents, propose amendments and vote on them at the conference. The final decision will be up to all members through an online, secure, one-member-one-vote system.

This statement, it seems, represents the position of one faction of the YourParty organization. However, other elements are opposed to the idea. One of those elements is an organization called the “Alliance for Workers’ Liberty”. On its website, it has an article expressing its displeasure with the idea:

For democracy, against sortition

How and when, or even if, the “Your Party” conference will be convened is unclear as of now. But the main current proposal for it is “sortition” – that those who can attend the conference and vote will be chosen at random from the membership. We believe that this method, like the e-plebiscites proposed to supplement it, is undemocratic, and having delegates elected after deliberation in local groups is much better.

Sortition is vulnerable to people who have signed up for individual reasons and have no real day-to-day involvement in activity or discussion. Especially in a party as amorphous as this one, delegates being selected at random from the membership allows for landlords, say, or transphobes, to decide on its policy. The same person would probably not be elected by a branch.

New activists can easily be deflected by finer details of amendments, smooth speeches or technical points in meeting procedure. The best guard against that is to have experienced and capable democrats who know how to argue – and how to protest when the meeting is not being run democratically – and procedures which enable new young activists constantly to learn those skills (in a way that a randomly-selected delegate to a single conference can’t possibly learn).

Filed under: Proposals, Sortition | 10 Comments »

Hallam: Sortition is democracy

Posted on September 20, 2025 by Yoram Gat

Roger Hallam, a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, recently released from a year-long stay in jail where he was serving a sentence for criminal political activities, has been a sortition advoacate for some time. Hallam has a new forceful article in The New Stateman (and a new book). Unlike other authors, for Hallam, sortition is not an add-on. It is democracy. If memory serves, Hallam is the most high-profile consistent advocate for sortition to date.

Hallam starts by a full frontal assault on elections.

Voting isn’t democratic. We need sortition

Randomly selecting people to rule would be a hell of a lot better than holding elections

[V]oting and elections do not, and never have, produced rule by the people. What they produce is oligarchy – rule by the few. Don’t take my word for it. This was standard political knowledge from ancient times up to the French Revolution. What you got with voting and elections was a few people in charge – obviously! Because, as everyone who observes what actually happens knows, so-called electoral “democracies” are always controlled by the few. Sure, if you like voting and elections and oligarchies that’s fine. They have their pros and cons, but don’t delude yourself and others that you are a democrat. You are not.
Continue reading →

Filed under: Books, Elections, History, Press, Sortition | 5 Comments »