Opening the People’s House: A New Vision for Executive Leadership in the United States

By Nick Coccoma, Max Goodman, and Dr. Paul Zeitz off #unifyUSA


The Imperial Presidency

As we approach the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States, it’s time for some straight talk. Our presidential system, once the envy of the world, now struggles to meet the complex challenges of the 21st century. The concentration of power in a single president has led to executive orders on steroids, whiplash between administrations, and a growing disconnect between the American people and their leadership. And with the Supreme Court recently declaring the president above the law, the threat of tyranny looms larger than ever.

But what if there was a way to reinvigorate our democracy, tapping into the collective wisdom of everyday Americans while preserving the efficiency needed for effective governance? What if—just like the legislature and judiciary—we could create an executive branch that truly embodies the spirit of “We the People?”

Today, we propose just that: a bold reimagining of the executive, one that draws on our deepest American values of freedom, community, and service to create a more responsive, accountable, and effective government. Once again, our vision hinges on one bold idea: empowering everyday Americans through democratic lotteries.

Continue reading

Benching the Ref: Democratizing Constitutional Review

By Nick Coccoma, Max Goodman, and Dr. Paul Zeitz of #unifyUSA

The Evil Umpire

The whole idea of a constitution has one fundamental weakness: Who decides what it means?  In the United States, this subtle but immense power is given to the Supreme Court, and the results have been…anything but subtle. Through its long history, the court has exercised near-absolute power through repressive, sweeping, and downright dangerous rulings. A sampling: “Black people aren’t people.” “Corporations are people.” “You have an unenumerated right to abortion—just kidding, no you don’t.” Most recently: “The ban on insurrectionists holding public office doesn’t actually mean what it says,” and, “The president is above the law—even in cases of treason.”  

These interpretations serve as binding national policy, despite the justices’ total lack of accountability to the people.  The court’s insulation from public sentiment, originally intended to help keep their rulings objective and apolitical, has backfired spectacularly. Instead, lifetime tenure and concentrated power have made appointing justices a partisan dream. And that’s not to mention the luxurious gifts, bribes, and perks lavished on them by billionaires—you know, just for being friends.  No longer can we legitimately claim that the Supreme Court simply “calls balls and strikes.” The umpire has become the most dominant player on the field—the apotheosis of a judicial tyrant. As a result, the whole game of democracy is in jeopardy.

Continue reading

Betting on Real Democracy

By Nick Coccoma, Max Goodman, and Dr. Paul Zeitz of #unifyUSA

During the March on Washington a crowd stretches from the Lincoln Memorial to the Washington Monument
Photo by Unseen Histories on Unsplash

The Problem with Elections

As of July 2024, only 16% of Americans approve of Congress.  Think about what that means – more than 4 in 5 US citizens disapprove of the main institution of our democracy – a legislature of their own representatives.  Many aspects of our elections are transparently broken. Through the machinations of entrenched partisanship, gerrymandering, and dark money, only 30 (~7%) of the 435 seats in the House remain competitive in 2024. It’s no wonder so many of us feel deprived of a voice in government.  But it doesn’t need to be this way.  Effective reforms are well-studied, and there’s a bold, practical toolkit available to help defeat our democratic demons. In many cases we can scrap electoral politics entirely while still advancing our sacred democratic experiment.

Continue reading

The Case for a People’s Convention in the U.S.

Moral, Legal, and Practical Imperatives to Restore the American Republic

By Nick Coccoma, Max Goodman, and Dr. Paul Zeitz of #unifyUSA.

American democracy is falling apart, a slow-motion car wreck we’ve been watching for years. But this crash wasn’t caused by an outside force. We’ve been run off the road by our own founding document: the U.S. Constitution. We know—sacrilege! Yet it must be said. And as legal scholar Rosa Brooks puts it, it’s our collective worship of the document that’s tying us down: 

How did it happen that the United States, which was born in a moment of bloody revolution out of a conviction that every generation had the right to change its form of government, developed a culture that so many years later is weirdly hidebound when it comes to its form of government, reveres this piece of paper as if it had been handed by God out of a burning bush, and treats the Constitution as more or less sacred? Is it really such a good thing to have a document written almost 250 years ago still be viewed as binding us in some way? How would we feel if our neurosurgeon used the world’s oldest neurosurgery guide, or if NASA used the world’s oldest astronomical chart to plan space-shuttle flights?

She’s right. The Constitution’s like a Macintosh computer from 1984. Innovative when it first came out; painfully inadequate for the tasks of today. We’ve tried to keep it running with patches and workarounds, but there’s only so much you can do with outdated hardware. 

Many people know this, yet they despair of making updates. Along with being the oldest on earth, the Constitution’s also the most difficult to change. Article V presents an absurdly high bar to clear. Since 1791, we’ve revised it only 17 times. 

Continue reading

A Constitutional Imperative to Implement a Citizen’s Assembly Model within US Governance

A post by Dylan Vargas. Dylan Vargas is a Master’s Student at American University studying International Affairs Policy and Analysis. In his studies he focuses on the interplay between good governance and human rights. He has worked extensively in the Democracy space, including work in four electoral campaigns and two years with the League of Women Voters of the United States advocating for Democracy Reform. This post was written as part of a Human Rights course Vargas is taking at AU.

A Constitutional Imperative to Implement a Citizen’s Assembly Model within US Governance

Outline: The core argument of the post is that the United States should implement a Citizen’s Assembly Model to achieve a more representative and responsive form of governance, as promised by the U.S. Constitution. Current democratic mechanisms are failing to adequately reflect the diverse population they serve, leading to widespread mistrust in government institutions. The implementation of a Citizen’s Assembly — a body made up of randomly selected citizens reflecting the demographic makeup of the country — would ensure that the voices and perspectives of ordinary Americans are better represented in policy-making. This argument addresses Equality by Lot’s debates surrounding political representation, democratic legitimacy, and the crisis of public trust in government. It focuses on the US Constitution, founding documents, US polling/stats, and conversations around democratic and repressive government political theory.

Continue reading

Allotting the deck chairs on the Titanic

The Council of Europe, “the continent’s leading human rights organisation”, announces:

A historic milestone for deliberative democracy: Ukraine’s first-ever Citizens’ Assembly successfully launched

Kyiv, Ukraine 8 October 2024

The first weekend of Ukraine’s inaugural Citizens’ Assembly, supported by the Council of Europe, successfully concluded in Zvyahel. This historic event, the first-ever Citizens’ Assembly held under wartime conditions, marks a significant step in advancing deliberative democracy in Ukraine. The CA was organised by Zvyahel City Council with the expert, methodological and financial support of the Council of Europe project «Strengthening democratic resilience through civic participation during the war and in the post-war context in Ukraine».
Continue reading

INSA Online Summit – October 6th

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is bNPi0NAkKlpmeIkwuWHgm_EAJtIL5yRXimSE85CZQDBGflIEoqOfbj1dJZnE7EweZDaDRWyptaJ-lYBeXI6VmYo8AxfkSd_WrtQ5J0TARiec-ZIHEAuaKK-iJ7ggHh7XMUd-VxHk

INSA Online Summit 2024

JOIN US for a 1-hour informal and interactive roundtable on the status of sortition events and activities in countries around the world.


Sunday, 6 October 2024

– Monday, 7 October in Asia & Australia – 

19:00 GMT, 20:00 Europe, 21:00 Israel, 14:00 EST (2:00 PM), 6:00 AEDT

Google Meet Joining Video Link: https://meet.google.com/eej-szev-hje


INSA is a volunteer organisation aimed at connecting pro-sortition academics, advocates, and activists around the world, to share resources and tactics and advance the theoretical understanding of sortition. www.INSA.site

You are also invited to join our Discord server at https://discord.gg/6sgnrphp6

Patrick Deneen on democracy, populism and sortition

Patrick Deneen is a professor of political science at Notre Dame university. He is a fairly prominent public intellectual in US politics, popular especially among the Republican elite. His 2018 book, Why Liberalism Failed, drew quite a bit of attention.

A piece by Deneen has recently been published by the Notre Dame magazine. It is a surprisingly, even impressively, good. The heavy punches just keep coming. Here are some excerpts.

Democracy and Its Discontents

The claim that our democracy is imperiled should rightly strike fear in the souls of citizens, but it ought also to give pause to any student of politics. During most of the four decades I have studied and written about democracy, political scientists, and especially political theorists such as myself, would begin not with a claim about the relative health of democracy, but rather with a seemingly simple question: What is democracy?

Yet according to a dominant narrative among today’s academics, public intellectuals, media personalities and even many citizens, it is largely assumed that we know what democracy is. Continue reading

Sortition on Novara Media

Novara Media is British media organization which publishes videos on YouTube. On August 31st it published a video in which the presenters mocked a certain UK MP. In the context of lamenting the supposed stupidity of that MP, one of the presenters, Aaron Bastani, suggested appointing the entire House of Commons by lot. Bastani seemed fairly well informed about the topic, mentioning the term sortition and the use of the mechanism in Athens.

The argument about sortition generating a more competent body is somewhat unusual since it is conventionally claimed that sortition generates a more representative but less competent body.

The video had over 17,000 views and over 200 comments, but none of the comments as far as I could see picked up on the topic.

I mean you’d be better off, you’d honestly be better off, just the first person you see on the street or in the pub and saying “Look, you’re going to be an MP for a constituency”, they will be better than Esther McVey.

By the way, that’s something I really believe. If you randomly chose individuals and you made them MPs and then they had to form parties and alliances over a period of time, I genuinely believe they would do a better job than than the House of Commons. I know people are going to get upset with me. That’s not anti-politics left populism. It’s called sortition. It used to be the basis of Athenian democracy. I’m saying that it would be superior, with women involved and no slave class. I do genuinely believe it would give us better MPs than the caliber we have right now.

How to answer the problem of accountability in sortition?

One of the most common criticisms against sortition is that there is no accountability, whereas election allegedly does have an accountability mechanism. What is the appropriate rebuttal to this criticism? I have tried to answer this poorly in a blog post here. I make up a matrix of hypothetical, idealized scenarios and assess elections vs sortition. I find that elections only achieve accountability contingent on high voter competence. When voter incompetence is assumed, I find that sortition will lead to better outcomes.

In other words, I find that sortition only makes sense in worlds where we do not have competent voters. Moreover, I find that sortition fails in worlds populated by solely Machiavellian personalities (maybe you could call these people homo economicus).

Voter incompetence is manifested as the inability of voters to control and create representative political parties. And their inability to wrest electoral power away from elites. Or their incompetence in participating in the right political primaries or the right elections. Or their inability to effectively compete against wealthy special interests. The public lacks the capacity to win the electoral contests.