Sortition in 2025

Equality-by-Lot’s traditional yearly review post. For previous editions look up each year’s December posts.

The most important sortition-related development of the year was undoubtedly the decision by YourParty in the UK to allot the delegates to it founding conference. This decision created an intense discussion around sortition, a discussion that was unprecendented certainly in the UK specifically, probably in the entire Anglosphere, and possibly even in the modern world.

Many activists were horrified to find that sortition stripped them of their standard privilege associated with their established organizing and willingness to invest time and resources. The claims that the whole setup was a way for the organizers to control the process were substantiated by the setup’s details: Thousands of allotted delegates gathered into a hall for a two-day event, inevitably forcing them into the position of passive audience, eliminating any possibility of setting the agenda for the conference. Interestingly, one of the decisions adopted was a rather vague commitment to allotting some of the delegates of future YourParty conferences.

Another notable event was the posting on YouTube and TikTok of a “Subway Take” by the Academy Award winning actor Riz Ahmed in which he proposed to “stop having all elections and elect leaders through a random lottery”. On YouTube the post has now been viewed over 2.5 million times and garnered almost 200,000 likes.

Within the standard academic sortition mud stirring, one proposal stood out: using sortition to create democratic investor assemblies for controlling corporations.

Finally, the electoralist crisis in the West continues to unfold. An opposition candidate who unexpectedly won the first round of presidential elections in Romania was disqualified and the leader of the French Right was barred from participating in upcoming elections after being found guilty of illegal management of party finances.

The Shared Center: Awakening our Better Angels

It’s finally out!

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.

Riz Ahmed’s subway take

“Subway Takes” is a popular media series operated by Kareem Rahma with channels on TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and X, each with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. In each short video Rahma interviews a person, often a celebrity of sorts, and the interviewee lays out their “take”: an idea that they present as unusual and important. In a recent episode, Rahma interviews Riz Ahmed, a fairly known actor, whose take is

We need to stop having all elections and elect leaders through a random lottery!!

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.

Rolling the Dice on Democracy

A new short video discussing sortition lays out the standard discourse around sortition. In doing so, despite the video’s tone that seems rather sympathetic to sortition, it echos the arguments against sortition made by supporters of elections rather naively. Similar arguments were made by elitists throughout the ages, going back at least 2,500 years to Socrates, when they argued against any democratic mechanism. When people argue for the maintenance of their privilege, they always claim that they do so for the general benefit. We are quick to dismiss such claims when they come from our ideological enemies, e.g., advocates of monarchy, theocracy, and most notably from those who argue for the system used in the People’s Republic of China. Shouldn’t this skepticism be applied to those defending elections as well?