Point of View: Shoring Up Democracy

Jack Graves writes in the East Hampton Star:

An Op-Ed in The Times not long ago [the author presumably refers to this. -YG] suggested that the ballot in this country be replaced by “sortition” — appointment by lot, which democratic Athens used in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C.E. to stock its populous Council, Assembly, and jury courts.

While the level of participation was very high, putting to shame our apathetic turnouts, Athenian democracy wasn’t at the root all that democratic: Women had no voice, neither did resident aliens, who could not own property; there were slaves, as many as 100,000 in the 4th century, it’s estimated in Thomas N. Mitchell’s “Athens: A History of the World’s First Democracy,” and in its Golden Age an aristocratic general and gifted orator, Pericles, essentially called the tune.

Socrates, who was to be sentenced to death for impiety, wasn’t a fan, nor were Plato and Aristotle, though he saw some potential good in it. Socrates said, “It is absurd to choose magistrates by lot where no one would dream of drawing lots for a pilot, a mason, a flute player, or any craftsman at all though the shortcomings of such men are far less harmful than those that disorder our government.”

Frankly, I see no reason why sortition would work any better in the United States, a vastly larger country, than the representative democracy (or democratic republic, if you will) that we already have; though it’s clear that the Electoral College has skewed things, according to smaller states’ disproportionate power, and, because of the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, focuses presidential campaigns on battleground states.

Selection by lottery can make the university system more egalitarian

ِA proposal by Sam Mace for randomization in university admittance. Conall Boyle’s work on this idea gets a mention.

It’s Time to Sort the University

University is the gateway to a better life. But the gap between elite and non-elite institutions and their admissions contradicts our self-convinced myths about meritocracy that we have developed. The best and the brightest do not necessarily attend our highest caliber and best funded institutions. Instead, all too often, it is the most well connected, the richest, and a lucky few others who are allowed to grace so many hallowed halls.

The reasoning behind the expansion of universities in the 20th century was to dramatically alter people’s economic and social status. But today, what kind of university someone goes to all too often determines their life path. Attending an Oxford or a Harvard may radically change a young person’s life, whereas for someone attending a Bradford or an Alabama State, this is far less likely to happen. Given the increasing pressures on funding for humanities and other scholarly subjects such as ancient history and classics, attending certain universities will soon include an irrevocable decision on what a student can study.

Therefore the question must be not just how many people can go to university but how fair is the admissions process for the very best universities. This question and similar ones about the role of universities has not just been asked by progressives but also by conservatives such as Christopher Lasch and Patrick Deneen. The fear of elite concentrations of economic, social, and cultural capital is keenly felt across the ideological spectrum. It is a problem that plagues the Anglosphere.

The exams to assess who gets a spot at university are more ruthlessly competitive than ever before. We use invigilators to ensure fairness and tie ourselves in knots over the ethics of using tools such ChatGPT, yet few of us are questioning the fairness of the admissions system in the first place. The enormous demand for the most prestigious universities sparks an ugly reality of fraud and inequality.
Continue reading

Allotted assemblies for overcoming coalition discord

An op-ed in the Belgian La Libre.

How allotted citizen assemblies could have prevented the failure of the fiscal reform

By Eric Jourdain

Whereas the necessary fiscal reform plan is figured in the government agreement, the seven parties of the Vivaldi government have not reached an agreement. It is time to put the brakes on the particracy, to reanimate democracy and to give an unexpected role to the prime minister.

On July 22nd, our prime minister Alexander De Croo was extremely disappointed. He published an open letter in the written press deploring the fact that “the political class is sometimes so preoccupied by its own matters that it forgets the people and the causes that it must serve”. This was after the failure of the fiscal reform, when the prime minister realized with bitterness that the seven parties which compose the Vivaldi coalition would not reach an agreement on approving yet another version of the fiscal reform presented by the finance minister.

The reform project did figure in the federal government accord presented in September 2020, which explicitly planned for a balanced budget and the reduction in the fiscal pressure on the workers (employees, civil servants and self-employed).

In a country which has the ambition to reach a work participation rate of 80%, one would think that this reform would serve the general interest. In fact, more people at work translates automatically to an increase in contributions to social programs and to fiscal revenue, and a decrease in social expenses by the community.

How to allow a prime minister to resolve this impasse in the future?

By adding a few articles to our constitution specifying the following points:

  • Define what is an allotted citizen assembly.
  • Stipulate that when a reform project set out in the government accord is not adopted within 3 years after the formation of the legislature, the head of government may invoke a new article in the constitution. The new article, say Article X, would allow the prime minister to convene a Citizen Assembly via sortition to which he would propose to adopt the legislation that the parties refuse to adopt. The vote of the Assembly would be binding.

In case of a positive vote, that would mean that the prime minister and the Citizen Assembly have together prevented an impasse, and possibly a governmental crisis. This would get around the harmful effects of particracy.
Continue reading

Low acceptance rate as an anti-democratic excuse

An argument against sortition that is fairly common among academics is that allotted bodies are not representative because the acceptance rates of offered seats are low. It is often claimed that “experience has shown” that “less than 10%” of people are willing to serve on allotted bodies. Such a finding, it is claimed, is grounds for not using sortition at all, for limiting the powers of allotted bodies, or for various forms of meddling in the way allotted bodies are made up.

Despite the fact that it is sometimes admitted that acceptance rates change depending on the circumstances, the “fact” of low acceptance rates is largely treated as being an immutable, if unfortunate, obstacle to the representativity of allotted bodies. In fact, however, it is obvious that acceptance rates can be easily increased, quite possibly reaching fairly close to 100%, if compensation for acceptance is high enough. How many people would refuse to commit a few weekends to participating in an allotted body if they are paid a few months’ worth of the median salary for their efforts? The answer to this question is obviously that (while we can probably make a good guess) we do not know for sure. But equally obviously it would be fairly easy to find out by running a few experiments.

It is a small miracle then that all those who busy themselves with attacking sortition by arguing that low acceptance rates make allotted bodies unrepresenative have not argued strongly for running such experiments. One may suspect that complaints about low acceptance rate is a tool for resisting the democratic power of sortition, rather than a real concern coming from people with a genuine interest in democratizing society.
Continue reading

Sam Husseini: A great case for sortition

An allotted European People’s Assembly

Joe Mathews writes in The San Francisco Chronicle about an allotted European People’s Assembly.

How government by lottery could save our democracy

Recently, I spent a long afternoon on a dusty and rocky Athens hill called the Pnyx for the first meeting of a novel assembly inspired by the past.

If its members can establish their [new People’s Assembly] in the governance of Europe, it might change everything we think we know about democracy.

“Citizens of Athens, citizens of the world,” declared Kalypso Nicolaidis, a Franco-Greek scholar who helps lead the assembly and is chair in global affairs at the European University’s School of Transnational Governance, “we would like to invite you to change yourselves.”

Around the world, democracy is seen as a system in which the public, through elections, chooses its representatives. But the People’s Assembly wouldn’t consist of elected politicians. Instead, it would be composed of everyday people, chosen by lottery processes that ensure that the body is a demographic mirror of the people it represents.

These wouldn’t be just the people of one city or one province or even one nation. The People’s Assembly would be a transnational body, with members selected by lottery to represent all of Europe. There’s no body like that on Earth.

But what truly sets apart the idea — and what would make it revolutionary — is its permanence.
Continue reading

Sortition in Tunisia

Jeune Afrique discusses the mechanism for selecting the members of a newly created second chamber of the Tunisian parliament. There are various details that are not quite clear to me, but the mechanism apparently involves sortition and the creation of arbitrary districts combining interior and coastal areas, an idea which echos the reforms of Cleisthenes.

In Tunisia, a new system, new electoral districting

Announced at the end of September, the new partitioning includes new areas and districts whose representatives will seat at the second chamber of Parliament, created in May 2022. But the logic of the repartitioning, including that of the geography, is perplexing.

Decree 589 of September 21st, 2023 is significant: it sets a configuration which corresponds to the old idea of connecting interior regions with coastal ones.

[These districts will be used] to create the National Council of Regions and Districts, the second chamber of Parliament.

The 72 representatives of the Council will be appointed using a complex method which involves voting and sortition, with each stage structuring the different levels of regional representation.

Sortition proposal in the Indian ThePrint

A reader of the Indian political news website ThePrint contributes a sortition proposal.

The case for Sortition to replace elections

For most democrats electing politicians is the essential feature to prevent a free society from becoming a dictatorship.

Questions are raised about the legitimacy of [elections-based] systems! Politicians have little in common with the people they govern. Parliaments around the world are filled with crooks, criminals, frauds, imposters, illiterates or incompetent, uninformed, immature, lazy or questionable people. Rent-seeking or the perks of the office seem more on their mind than fulfilling duties of their office or campaign-promises. Elections create the illusion of choice, a circus masquerading as exercise of democracy.

Sortition presents an elegant solution. It was first implemented in the democracy of ancient Athens. Instead of electing Parliamentarians / Alders, Members of those bodies are randomly selected from a pool of suitable applicants. It has been a widely debated alternative to elections to pry politicians from the hands of all powerful Party-Presidents without them falling prey to deep-pocketed donors.
Continue reading

London borough to hold a citizens assembly to scrutinize the police

Stories in the Waltham Forest Echo and the Evening Standard.

Waltham Forest announces citizens assembly to scrutinise Met Police

The assembly, the first of its kind in the country, comes as Waltham Forest has the lowest trust in the Metropolitan Police out of any London borough

A citizens’ assembly scrutinising police officers in Waltham Forest will be held in the Spring.

The move has been described by Waltham Forest Council as the first time a local authority in the UK has held such an assembly.

The goal of the assembly will be to hear local people’s views on how policing can better reflect Baroness Casey’s report on the Metropolitan Police. The March report found the police to be “institutionally racist, sexist, homophobic”.

The council says the assembly makeup will aim to reflect the population of Waltham Forest in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, whether or not they have a disability, and where in the borough they live.
Continue reading

The Keys to Democracy by Maurice Pope

Maurice Pope’s book The Keys to Democracy is the third book ever written advocating the use of sortition as a major component of a modern government. (The two earlier ones being Ernest Callenbach and Michael Phillips’s A Citizen Legislature and John Burnheim’s Is Democracy Possible?, both first published in 1985. Pope, who seems to have started writing at about the same time, was apparently unaware of either.) The great strengths of Pope’s writing are his independence of thought and his evident sincerity. Coming early into the field, and being a classicist rather than a political scientist, Pope was clearly breaking new ground, following his own logical train of thought. He was thus free from the burden of formulaically making connections to prior writings and from the petty-political considerations of self-promotion. This unique situation made a thoroughgoing impact on the book as a whole.

Authors of works about sortition (including Pope) generally share the ostensible aim of achieving some measure of democratization of society. But while this general aim is broadly shared, the consensus ends there because the detailed aims and the proposed mechanisms for achieving them vary widely. At the conservative end, the problem with the existing system is conceived as some sort of sclerosis. The main symptom of the problem is fatigue, or a lack of confidence. Sortition-based institutions are then seen as a way to infuse the system with new blood or new vigor, rejuvenating a system that is essentially sound but has for various reasons, that generally remain vague, fallen into a bad state. Associated with this view of things are generally quite modest proposals – advisory bodies that “help” current decision makers make more informed decisions. Even those more informed decisions are perhaps less important than the mere fact that allotted citizens are widely recognized as having had a part in the process. Indeed, what exactly the problems are with the current outcomes of the process and what are the expected improvements in terms of policy is usually not specified. In fact, sometimes the entire point is to have the allotted citizens themselves become more informed rather than making any changes in decision making. Writings in this vein tend to be heavy with references to the canon of “deliberative democracy” and light on the idea that democracy is a regime of political equality.
Continue reading