Is voting working? What if we rolled the dice instead?

Posted on February 2, 2026 by Yoram Gat

Michael J. Smith from Portland, Maine, in the United States writes in the Sun Journal:

Everybody likes democracy — in principle. But apparently fewer and fewer people are happy with the actual thing, if the Pew Research Center is to be believed.

My dear old mom, of blessed memory, used to sigh and say, “If only we could get the money out of politics!” But in a social context where there are relatively few people who have lots of money, and don’t mind spending it on politicians, to promote their interests, this is difficult.

What Mom meant by “politics” — and what we usually mean by “democracy,” too — is in fact electoral politics: the machinery of parties, nominations, polls, advertising and “messaging.” And of course campaign contributions, which is a genteel euphemism for “bribes.”

The spectacle itself is squalid enough: the mendacity of “talking points,” the non-responsive answer to the tendentious question, the rhetorical trickery, the vulgar personal attacks and the hollow, deceptive slogans.

But more to the point, it simply doesn’t deliver what it promises: namely, some approximation to what Rousseau called the “general will.” Our executives and legislatures consistently fail to come up with things that the public wants. Examples abound, but we have an especially glaring one before us just now. Public opinion has turned very strongly against Israel, across the partisan spectrum, but all our politicians, from president to dogcatcher, are basketballs-to-the-wall for the South Africa of the Levant.
Continue reading →

Filed under: Athens, Elections, History, Press, Proposals, Sortition | Leave a comment »

Germany Update: A Party as a Vehicle for Lottocracy

Posted on February 2, 2026 by Jochen Krattenmacher

In August 2025, we founded the Losdemokratie-Partei (Lottocracy-Party). The party naturally is not the goal. It is a vehicle for achieving democratic reforms toward a Lottocracy — once a full Lottocracy is achieved, we will disband, as our program explicitly states.

Accordingly, we do not present a detailed substantive policy platform of our own. Instead, we commit ourselves to representing and defending the recommendations of citizen assemblies, and to expanding their use. These assemblies are not only meant to decide concrete policy questions, but also to determine the institutional design of a future lottocracy and the reform steps leading toward it.

Why a party? Unlike most other organisations, we do not work within the existing system without offering an alternative to it. NGOs typically depend on cooperation with parties and institutions whose legitimacy and self-descriptions they cannot fundamentally question—this constraint, sadly, often applies to universities as well. A serious critique of the political system only becomes effective and consequential when it is paired with a concrete alternative—not just in theory, but in practice. Founding a party is our way of making that alternative tangible and actionable for as many people as this system allows (if “only” by voting for us).

We are deliberately confrontational at this point: we insist that calling this system a “democracy” is misleading. It is more accurately described as an electoral aristocracy. This sharp diagnosis is not a rhetorical flourish; it is the core of our argument. It allows us to stand out clearly within the otherwise very cautious and self-referential “democracy discourse,” and it appeals across the political spectrum, even if there of course are plenty who are not yet ready for our message.

Where we are now

We are around 70 members nationwide. Early visibility came largely through Ardalan Ibrahim (our current party head), who already had a YouTube channel with 2000 followers when we launched. Since then, Ardalan has been gradually moving into larger podcast formats. Beyond that, many members contribute in parallel: through party and personal social media accounts, behind-the-scenes work, and offline presence—for example by holding up lottocracy signs at street events. Overall, our collective reach has grown slowly but steadily. There is no illusion here: a lot more media work remains to be done.

We are amateurs in the literal sense: none of us has ever been paid for political work (which can be seen as an advantage, as this way we come with less associations with existing political camps). At the same time, we are not shy about seeking funding. Getting paid for political work is fully congruent with our critique—politics should not be restricted to those who can afford to do it for free.

Continue reading →

Filed under: Action, Elections, Sortition | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »