Posted on September 2, 2013 by peterstone
I’ve recently published two articles that might prove of interest. First, I wrote a review essay dealing with the Imprint Academic series on Sortition and Public Policy. It’s just appeared in the latest issue of Redescriptions: Yearbook of Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory (volume 16, 2012/2013). It’s been in the pipeline for a while, and so regrettably does not cover the latest offerings in the series (such as Conall Boyle’s interesting book on educational lotteries). The issue is at https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/handle/123456789/42047
Second, Comparative Education Review just published a symposium on “Fair Access to Higher Education: A Comparative Perspective” (volume 57, no. 3, August 2013). It contains a paper of mine entitled “Access to Higher Education by the Luck of the Draw.” The paper deals with university admissions in general and the Irish case in particular. It’s available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/669235, but only if your library/university subscribes.
Sorry to be incommunicado. I’ve been away for much of the summer, and have a very busy term ahead of me, but I hope to rejoin the conversation soon.
Filed under: Academia, Books, Distribution by lot, House of Lords, Proposals, schools, Sortition, Theory | 13 Comments »
Posted on July 4, 2012 by keithsutherland
And Your Premium Bond Prize is . . . A Seat in the Lords
In his column in the current issue of the Sunday Times, Jeremy Clarkson argues the case for appointing members of the Lords by sortition. Although the piece is written in Clarkson’s customary jocular style, it’s a serious response to Nick Clegg’s proposal for an elected house. Clarkson argues that this will attract ‘the sort of people who you’ll find in any large organisation, the sort who go to a lot of meetings and when there they eat all the biscuits . . . they go on marches but half the time they have no idea what they’re marching for.’ Clarkson refers to these political types as ‘Colins’:
Suffice to say, I have a better idea. It goes like this. Instead of filling a House of Colins with a bunch of biscuit-eating nonentities, who left to their own devices would struggle to wire a plug, we use the computer that’s used to pick premium bond winners to select eight people at random each week from the electoral list. Of course, it would be a nuisance for them to take a week off work . . . but all that will be asked of them is that they have a quick look over the bills being discussed in the House of Commons . . .
Seriously. Who would you rather have doing the job: [hereditary peers] or your mate Jim from the builder’s yard? Quite. We trust randomly selected juries on the important business of a person’s liberty, so why wouldn’t we trust a similar system to apply the checks and balances in government? . . . Certainly I’d rather have a government’s ideas checked by a small, cheap group of ordinary people than by 450 expensive Colins.
Unfortunately the article itself is pay to view.
Filed under: House of Lords, Sortition | 3 Comments »
Posted on May 19, 2012 by Yoram Gat
Matt Hall writes in the openDemocracy website:
‘Britain’s political system is plainly in trouble’ […] One solution that has been growing in support […], is the replacement of elections and politicians with the random selection of ordinary people. […] Too radical say some. Too naive say others. Familiar complaints, but is this really the case? In this article I’d like to provide some counterpoints to the main arguments against sortition.
Continue reading →
Filed under: Elections, House of Lords, Sortition | 3 Comments »
Posted on April 28, 2012 by Yoram Gat
Patrick Keddie, a freelance writer, writes in Liberal Conspiracy:
The historic prospect of reforming the House of Lords, set to be announced in the Queen’s Speech on 9 May, should be exciting – yet the public is hardly enthused.
Fairly or not, politicians are currently viewed as pretty disreputable creatures and the prospect of electing even more of them is not very appealing to many.
But there is a little-discussed radical alternative; a second chamber composed of ordinary people, appointed by lottery in a manner similar to those chosen for jury service.
I came across the idea on comedian Mark Thomas’s People’s Manifesto radio show. Thomas began a tour of the UK in 2009, asking audiences to come up with their own ideas and policies which were then debated.
Continue reading →
Filed under: Athens, House of Lords, Sortition | 8 Comments »
Posted on April 28, 2012 by Yoram Gat
A letter proposing sortition for the House of Lords by John Slinger – a Labour activist – is published in the Financial Times:
The report this week of the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill has led to a tired and polarised debate, resulting in two equally unattractive options. The conservationists wish to preserve an anachronistic, undemocratic body, which nonetheless carries out its responsibility to revise legislation with aplomb due to the expertise of its members. The reformers cling to the totem of elections to bestow on the Lords some semblance of democracy, yet offer no explanation on how to manage the inevitable constitutional clash between the newly legitimate Lords and the previously supreme Commons, or how the full range of expertise would be preserved. Instead, we require radical reform accommodating the best features of both options while mitigating their inherent deficiencies. One little-discussed idea is for a system of Citizen Senators, selected by lot as with juries.
Continue reading →
Filed under: House of Lords, Press, Proposals, Sortition | 1 Comment »
Posted on April 25, 2012 by Yoram Gat
Polly Toynbee wrote an article in the Guardian about House of Lords reform.
The comments thread had quite a few people suggesting to appoint House of Lords members by sortition, such as:
hermionegingold
simple
scrap the current lot of decrepit aristos, religious creme de la creme & former politicians bribed to give up their seats for ‘new blood’ and have lords lotto with the people of this nation like we do with jury service.
it can’t possibly be any worse than what we have now & who knows, with ‘token’ interest taken out of the equation they might actually get things done.
stranger things have happened.
Continue reading →
Filed under: House of Lords, Press, Sortition | 2 Comments »
Posted on April 24, 2012 by Yoram Gat
Clive Aslet writes in the Mail Online:
[E]ven the Conservatives back a largely elected chamber. They have to; democracy is the only show in town. But leaving aside the constitutional impasse that would ensue once an elected upper house started to throw its weight around, who would really want it? Our elected politicians are not exactly revered. In fact they’re reviled. The last thing we need is more of them. We need a different type of animal in the Lords – experts, great legal brains — but not appointees of the prime minister, thank you very much. It’s a conundrum. Everyone who thinks about it comes up with a different answer.
If David Cameron really believed in the Big Society, he would advocate true democratic involvement: appointment by lot. It could work like the jury system. Ordinary people serve a term as scrutineers of parliamentary legislation. You could be sure they would bring a lot more practical experience to the table than their oppos in the Commons.
Otherwise the only way forward I can see is for the Lords to revert to their origins. There are far too many Lords for the chamber to accommodate; let them fight it out.
Filed under: Elections, House of Lords, Press, Sortition | 1 Comment »
Posted on June 30, 2011 by Conall Boyle
Interesting observations by a randomly selected barrister (lawyer) on Citizens’ Assembly experiment in Ireland. The organisation behind it, ‘Wethecitizens’, is non-governmental, and looks excellent. For non-Irish: Oireachtas is Government, Seanad is the Upper House, like the House of Lords. It is sad to see that this exercise did not recommend Sortition for the Seanad.
Need to work out what a citizens’ assembly is before deciding to have one
CONOR NELSON
Thu, Jun 30, 2011
OPINION: I was selected to take part in the citizens’ assembly – but what exactly is the aim of the experiment?
LAST WEEK, I was selected randomly to participate in an experimental citizens’ assembly. It met over a day and a half last weekend at the Royal Hospital Kilmainham (originally to be the seat of the Oireachtas in 1922).
I met lots of people who were engaged and pleased to be selected. The event was run by the “We the Citizens” project, funded by Atlantic Philanthropies, the organisation founded by Chuck Feeney.
Continue reading →
0.000000
0.000000
Filed under: Elections, Experiments, House of Lords, Participation | 1 Comment »
Posted on June 7, 2011 by Yoram Gat
Daniel Hannan, a writer, journalist, and Conservative MEP, writes in the Telegraph:
Lord Steel now proposes to make the House of Lords wholly appointed. In other words, one of the two legislative chambers would be nominated by the executive. Of all the alternative models – direct election, indirect election, selection by lot, heredity or, indeed, unicameralism – surely appointment is the worst.
At least one of the commenters, “erikbloodaxe”, picks up on the idea of sortition:
I think the Lords should be appointed by lot, from among the general population. Professional politicians (with the odd honourable exception) are completely out of touch. Give them about £100k pa and make them turn up.
To which Hannan replies:
Surely if you wanted it to be genuinely representative, people should carry on earning whatever they were getting before?
Filed under: House of Lords, Press, Sortition | 41 Comments »
Posted on May 17, 2011 by keithsutherland
Andrew Lilco of the influentual website Conservative Home is currently proposing sortition for the reformed House of Lords:
I propose that half the members (300) should be selected randomly. It would be better if randomly-selected members knew their random selection from an early enough date to prepare for the role. Thus I would prefer hereditary – probably with new hereditary families. But I suspect that would be so controversial as to derail the whole scheme, and it is more important that there be random membership than whether people are prepared. So I propose that half the members be selected by lot, as with jury service. If you are selected for Second Chamber service, you must serve there for six months. I suggest that there is overlapping turnover – so, each month one sixth of the membership leaves to be replace by a new set. Hopefully, after a while people would see the benefits of expertise, responsibility and obligation being bred from an early stage, and so hereditary would once again be feasible. But a jury-style (or Athenian-style) component to the chamber would be a good base.
Full article
Filed under: Athens, House of Lords, Proposals | 4 Comments »