Today, I’m releasing the first three of what will be a series of 20 short videos. Two years in the making, they seek to present a book’s worth of ideas, but in a more accessible and contemporary format.
I’m hoping you’ll consider helping me get the word out!
The videos explore two related ideas:
1. Elections represent the people. So do lotteries – as used in juries.
Elections build polarisation and culture-war into our politics. They frame politics as a contest, rather than open dialogue or even genuine persuasion.
Juries frame politics as dialogue and solving problems in ways most of us can live with.
We already have them in our judicial branch. We must build them into our political decision-making – as Michigan has begun to with its Independent Citizens’ Redistricting Commission and Belgium has with standing citizen assemblies and parliamentary committees involving citizens chosen by lottery.
2. Open competition – for political office or promotion within organisations – centres leadership around self-interest.
Leaving other human capabilities and virtues unrewarded – listening to, involving and considering others.
The alternative is ‘bottom-up meritocracy’. It delivered widely celebrated stability and competence to Venice’s republic for five hundred years and governs Wikipedia today.
More on the website here. And the full playlist of the videos as they’re released is here.
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.
In the pretty likely event of a hung parliament after the next Australian election, the cross-bench becomes kingmaker. I’m hoping — and expecting — the crossbench to seek greater use of citizen assemblies in governing Australia. But what comes next is crucial.
Some think it would be great if a citizen assembly was held on an important issue — or two or three. Allegra Spender proposes one on tax. Others want one on housing. It would be nice to see them go ahead. But I’m sceptical they can achieve a lot.
First, on their own, citizen assemblies can be useful in lots of circumstances, but I’d say they’re most successful where they solve problems for politicians.
Ireland has become the pin-up boy for citizen assemblies
They’ve probably acquired a higher visibility in Ireland than anywhere else. And two of them have gone very well — allowing same-sex marriage and the repeal of anti-abortion provisions of the constitution. That’s because both solved problems for the politicians.
Irish citizen assemblies haven’t done noticeably better than elsewhere on the other occasions where they typically created problems for the politicians. In these circumstances, if politicians can’t ignore the citizen assembly on account of the profile it’s acquired, they cherry-pick its recommendations.
More importantly, whether or not the politicians accept their recommendations, the citizen assemblies usually contemplated are temporary and, as such, don’t aspire to leave any institutional trace. They also rehearse existing relationships in which we the people propose and the Government disposes.
I’ve gone to some lengths to propose an alternative, A standing citizen assembly effectively operating as a third house. (There’s something similar in the German-speaking part of Belgium). It is not more ‘radical’ than existing suggestions. It establishes an institution with exactly as much formal power as the other citizen assemblies just discussed. None.
The idea that it is more radical comes from what I call its greater ‘imaginative vigour’. Without proposing any change in formal power structures, it follows through on the idea that a different logic needs to enter the system.
I don’t see a citizen assembly as a tricky new ‘hack’. Nor is it that important to me that it seems more democratic. That’s a good thing, but, as we’ve seen in Iraq and Afghanistan and as the ancient Athenians discovered during the Peloponnesian War, more democratic structures don’t always arrive at better decisions.
The more I’ve thought about representation by sampling as opposed to representation by election, the more deeply I’ve appreciated their differences.
By their nature, elections separate the governed from those who govern. That’s why Aristotle called selection by lot ‘democratic’ and elections aristocratic or oligarchic. Montesquieu and America’s founding fathers agreed.
Electoral systems are also intrinsically competitive. And the competition for votes rewards performativity, manipulation and dissimulation.
That plunges electoral democracy into deep pathologies.
I think advocates of sortition should be pointing out the many ways it might be adapted to various different circumstances of our political life. This elides the more fundamental discussion of a preferred constitution, but rather naturalises the idea of sortition as part of the political repertoire. It shows its promise and versatility in helping to detox the current system.
Accordingly here’s something tweeted today —with the full text reproduced below the tweet.
People say an open convention would tear the Democrats apart.Yet again, the Dems are letting powerplays within their party determine their candidate. But Kamala is the Claudine Gay candidate. High DEI score, low on accomplishment, talent and charisma. Dems could get the right answer and unite their party — and the country using a variant of the way Venetians chose their officeholders and became the most stable polity in Europe for 500 years. An elective constitutional monarchy no less (like the US). I’d pick 50 Democrats and 50 American voters by lottery, have them meet, deliberate and each vote SECRETLY (like Venetian electors did). If you remove all the incentives to get the answer wrong, people usually get it RIGHT. Who knew?
Followers of this site will be intrigued to know what I think is a really first-rate radio documentary from Rory Stewart, which reframes knowledge in a Socratic or Confucian way, which is to say, starting from our vast ignorance both before and after we learn all we can. There are six episodes with the fourth on politics where Rory bangs the sortition drum pretty loud. You can click through to the whole series on this link or to the sortition episode by clicking the image below or the mp3 file which I’ve also appended below.
Readers of Equality by lot might be interested in this use of sampling to improve not equality but quality.
The “Quality Control” Interview for Big Classes
I teach a lot of big classes – the undergraduate advanced data analysis class passed 100 students many years ago, and this fall is over 230 – which has some predictable consequences. I don’t get to talk much to many of the students. They’re mostly evaluated by how they do on weekly problem sets (a few of which, in some classes, I call “take-home exams”), and I don’t even grade most of their homework, my teaching assistants do. While I try to craft problem sets which make sure the students practice the skills and material I want them to learn, and lead them to understand the ideas I want them to grasp, just looking at their scores doesn’t give me a lot of information about how well the homework is actually working for those purposes. Even looking at a sample of what they turn in doesn’t get me very far. If I talk to students, though, I can get a much better sense of what they do and do not understand fairly quickly. But there really isn’t time to talk to 100 students, or 200.
About ten years ago, now, I decided to apply some of the tools of my discipline to get out of this dilemma, by means of random sampling. Every week, I would randomly select a fixed number of students for interviews. These interviews took no more than 30 minutes each, usually more like 20, and were one-on-one meetings, distinct from regular open office hours. They always opened by me asking them to explain what they did in such-and-such a problem on last week’s homework, and went on from there, either through the problem set, or on to other topics as those suggested themselves. Continue reading →
I posted this on my own Substack at the time of John Burnheim’s memorial — in Nov 2023 and, coming across it looking for something else, it occurred to me that the folks on this blog might be interested in it.
William Hague has caught the bug for democratic lottery. And he writes about it well. This simple sentence is a nice little microcosm. “Social media companies are poisoning the democratic world with the addictive spread of narrow and intemperate opinions.” Hear hear.
Writing about the proposal of sortition in Ireland seven years ago, Hague takes up the story.
This idea was met by considerable scepticism. The Irish opposition party of the time, Fianna Fail, thought that “an issue of such sensitivity and complexity” could not be dealt with adequately in this way. The chosen citizens would just reflect the existing deep divisions in society. They would not be sufficiently expert. A judge-led commission would have more expertise and carry more weight. That would be more “intellectually coherent”.
Yet the citizens’ assembly was established nonetheless, and over the following six months something fascinating and inspiring occurred. An appointed chairwoman and 99 “ordinary” people, chosen at random and therefore completely varied in age, gender, regionality and socioeconomic status, did a remarkable job. They adopted some commendable principles for their debates, including respect, efficiency and collegiality. They listened to 25 experts and read 300 submissions. They heard each other out and compromised more effectively than elected representatives.
The result was an overwhelming recommendation that the constitution should be changed, and a clear majority view that the relevant section of it should be deleted and replaced, permitting their parliament to legislate on abortion in any way it saw fit. This was later endorsed in a historic referendum. One of the country’s most intractable issues had been resolved clearly and decisively, in a way the political parties could not have managed and would not have dared. …
[Then after summarising some of the ways in which democracy is coming apart, Hague continues.] At a time when all these trends are turning people against their own compatriots and reducing debate to simplistic and unsubstantiated assertions, it has to be a source of hope that if you put 100 random people in a room with an important question and plenty of real information, they will often prove that democracy isn’t yet finished. They will listen patiently, think clearly and find solutions. Somewhere, in this gathering darkness of hatred, lies and opposing cultural identities, there are open-minded and constructive citizens willing to turn on a light.
He also notes how many of his fellow parliamentarians are against the idea. It’s easy to say that that would reduce their power, but in my experience it’s not nearly so simple. Politicians think their job is to come up with good policy. They do try, but the whole fabric of political life is keeping powerful people happy. But they live in hope. Perhaps one day more of them will realise that to actually do good policy you need allies. And a citizen assembly is a useful ally for a positive centrist government (from either the left or right), just as the accord was a very powerful ally for the Hawke and Keating Governments.
My one disappointment is that, Hague’s imagination does not run beyond the idea of citizen assemblies as bodies with only advisory power. But I would say that, wouldn’t I?
Above is the video of a presentation I made at NESTA in London on 15th November with discussants Claire Mellior and Martin Wolf. I reproduce (AI generated) timestamps in the shownotes of the video below.
00:00 – Introduction and Overview The talk begins with an introduction to the challenges facing contemporary society and the roles of NESTA in addressing them, including applied research, venture building, and policy shaping.
02:09 – The Politics of Policy Solutions The speaker reflects on the difficulties of implementing policy solutions due to the complexities of politics and the need for radical ideas to meet the scale of current challenges.
03:34 – Panel Introduction and Project Background Introduction of the panel members and their contributions to the field, along with a mention of NESTA’s work in collective intelligence design.
05:14 – Democracy and Governance Types The talk shifts to a discussion of different types of governance, with a focus on Aristotle’s typology and the concept of democratic lotteries.
10:43 – Media Influence on Politics Analysis of the impact of media, especially the reduction of presidential soundbites over time, highlighting the influence of media on political discourse.
16:22 – Brexit and Citizen Juries The speaker discusses the impact of citizen juries on public opinion, particularly in the context of Brexit, and how deliberation influenced people’s views.
22:04 – Activism and Nonpartisan Politics The focus shifts to the concept of nonpartisan activism and the importance of citizen juries in representing democratic legitimacy and influencing policy.
28:44 – Embedding a People’s Branch in Government The idea of a ‘people’s branch’ in government is proposed, suggesting a chamber chosen by sampling to represent a check on elected representatives.
37:05 – Panel Responses and Discussion The panel members respond to the talk, discussing their perspectives on deliberative democracy, the role of citizen assemblies, and the complexities of political change.
50:18 – Q&A Session The question and answer session begins, allowing for audience engagement and further exploration of the topics discussed.
In an excruciating piece in the NYT (unpaywalled version), business guru Adam Grant endorses sortition, but in a risible form in which one randomly selects officials, rather than has a body of randomly selected people. This is all based on a psych experiment that showed that leaders chosen at random do better than those chosen by the group apparently.
Eliminate voting, and candidates with dark triad traits would be less likely than they are now to rise to the top. Of course, there’s also a risk that a lottery would deprive us of the chance to select a leader with distinctive skills. At this point, that’s a risk I’m willing to take. As lucky as America was to have Lincoln at the helm, it’s more important to limit our exposure to bad character than to roll the dice on the hopes of finding the best.
Besides, if Lincoln were alive now, it’s hard to imagine that he’d even put his top hat in the ring. … A lottery would give a fair shot to people who aren’t tall enough or male enough to win. It would also open the door to people who aren’t connected or wealthy enough to run. Our broken campaign finance system lets the rich and powerful buy their way into races while preventing people without money or influence from getting on the ballot. They’re probably better candidates: Research suggests that on average, people who grow up in low-income families tend to be more effective leaders and less likely to cheat — they’re less prone to narcissism and entitlement. Continue reading →