Activists blast the “the anti-democratic ‘sortition’ method”

Posted on September 27, 2025 by Yoram Gat

The “World Socialist Web Site” has a report about a recent rally in which Zarah Sultana, a co-founder of YourParty, spoke. The piece goes into some detail about the infighting in YourParty and mentions the sortition issue.

Tina Becker, from the “Why Marx?” group and a member of the Your Party “proto-branch” in Sheffield, asked Sultana about the anti-democratic “sortition” method being imposed by Corbyn’s “Organising Committee” to select delegates to the founding conference. Becker explained it meant “We can’t put forward motions, we can’t put forward amendments. There will be a lottery system to choose delegates.” She asked Sultana, “Should the regional meetings be able to vote and have amendments? Should we not be the ones who decide how Your Party should be run and not the six MPs, and what are you trying to do to change that?”

Sultana replied, “I too am quite critical of sortition, but that is what has been announced for the conference, and so we need to make sure it’s democratic. And I think there’s a way to still do that.”

Her remarks made clear there would be no organised challenge to Corbyn’s anti-democratic stitch-up. She did not and could not explain how delegates randomly selected based on “gender, region and background” could be “made democratic”. Sortition is being employed to block members from exercising democratic control, preventing them from nominating delegates who are accountable and who best reflect their views, suppressing any political challenge to Corbyn’s (and Sultana’s) unelected cliques.

Filed under: Press, Proposals, Sortition | 6 Comments »

Sortition in YourParty

Posted on September 22, 2025 by Yoram Gat

YourParty is an attempt to create a new left-wing party in the UK. The attempt seems to be in a lot a trouble due to infighting. One of the causes, or perhaps the symptoms, of the infighting is a struggle around the idea of employing sortition for selecting delegates to the founding conference of the party. This idea may have originated in, or at least given a non-negligible push by, a proposal made by Edmund Griffiths.

The official website of YourParty says:

In November, thousands of in-person founding conference delegates will be chosen by lottery to ensure a fair balance of gender, region, and background. These delegates will have a big responsibility – to debate the founding documents, propose amendments and vote on them at the conference. The final decision will be up to all members through an online, secure, one-member-one-vote system.

This statement, it seems, represents the position of one faction of the YourParty organization. However, other elements are opposed to the idea. One of those elements is an organization called the “Alliance for Workers’ Liberty”. On its website, it has an article expressing its displeasure with the idea:

For democracy, against sortition

How and when, or even if, the “Your Party” conference will be convened is unclear as of now. But the main current proposal for it is “sortition” – that those who can attend the conference and vote will be chosen at random from the membership. We believe that this method, like the e-plebiscites proposed to supplement it, is undemocratic, and having delegates elected after deliberation in local groups is much better.

Sortition is vulnerable to people who have signed up for individual reasons and have no real day-to-day involvement in activity or discussion. Especially in a party as amorphous as this one, delegates being selected at random from the membership allows for landlords, say, or transphobes, to decide on its policy. The same person would probably not be elected by a branch.

New activists can easily be deflected by finer details of amendments, smooth speeches or technical points in meeting procedure. The best guard against that is to have experienced and capable democrats who know how to argue – and how to protest when the meeting is not being run democratically – and procedures which enable new young activists constantly to learn those skills (in a way that a randomly-selected delegate to a single conference can’t possibly learn).

Filed under: Proposals, Sortition | 11 Comments »

Hallam: Sortition is democracy

Posted on September 20, 2025 by Yoram Gat

Roger Hallam, a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, recently released from a year-long stay in jail where he was serving a sentence for criminal political activities, has been a sortition advoacate for some time. Hallam has a new forceful article in The New Stateman (and a new book). Unlike other authors, for Hallam, sortition is not an add-on. It is democracy. If memory serves, Hallam is the most high-profile consistent advocate for sortition to date.

Hallam starts by a full frontal assault on elections.

Voting isn’t democratic. We need sortition

Randomly selecting people to rule would be a hell of a lot better than holding elections

[V]oting and elections do not, and never have, produced rule by the people. What they produce is oligarchy – rule by the few. Don’t take my word for it. This was standard political knowledge from ancient times up to the French Revolution. What you got with voting and elections was a few people in charge – obviously! Because, as everyone who observes what actually happens knows, so-called electoral “democracies” are always controlled by the few. Sure, if you like voting and elections and oligarchies that’s fine. They have their pros and cons, but don’t delude yourself and others that you are a democrat. You are not.
Continue reading →

Filed under: Books, Elections, History, Press, Sortition | 5 Comments »

Equality among whom? Why lottocrats should build on citizenship

Posted on August 27, 2025 by Jochen Krattenmacher

One of the more sensitive questions around sortition-based democracy is who should get to participate in political decision-making. Should assemblies be drawn only from citizens? Or should everyone who lives in a country be included? I have encountered this debate many times, and just now I am in a discussion whether a political party by lottocrats should aim for a lottocracy-for-citizens or a lottocracy-for-all-residents.

Here is my take: There are good arguments for extending political power, but if we want sortition to succeed and gain broad legitimacy, it should begin with citizens.

Here is the argument:

One of the greatest selling points of sortition is that it is "process-only": It exclusively is concerned with how the demos governs itself, not what its decisions should be. This outcome-neutrality has the potential to appeal to a broad spectrum of people across political tribes. However, if the adoption of sortition becomes tied to highly polarized debates over citizenship and borders, this broad appeal is diminished. Even if a political party should succeed in establishing a lottocracy for all inhabitants, chances are that it will do so at a steep price: Many people might view that lottocracy as illegitimate, which is especially dangerous for a nascent political system whose institutions will not yet be firmly established.

There’s also a psychological lens to consider: People tend to be loss-averse. When they feel that something they value—such as the privileges attached to citizenship—is being taken away, they will resist, even if the overall outcome could benefit them. And of course, there are plenty of (wanna-be) aristocrats and monarchs out there who would be more than happy to whip up such fears to gain political advantage.
Continue reading →

Filed under: Elections, Sortition | 2 Comments »

Sortition and rotation, a school of self-organization

Posted on August 27, 2025 by Yoram Gat

Edmund Griffiths is a long-time advocate for sortition. Griffiths revisits the topic in the context of the new party that is in the process of formation in the UK.

The most immediate topic is the matter of a founding conference. It seems that the plan is to somehow have a procedure of mass voting: “one member one vote, it looks like having an accessible way of engaging which is both in-person and hybrid [online, presumably -YG]”. But of course the final up-or-down vote is a small part of the decision making process.

Griffiths writes:

As in most plebiscitary systems, nearly everything would come down to how the questions were worded and presented; the faceless masses, atomized and unable to suggest amendments, would vote as they were invited to. This hybrid-OMOV system would thus devolve almost all the real decision-making power on the people who hold it now—the new party’s still-invisible leadership. Naturally we don’t know all their names. But it is hardly a secret that at least some of them are (a) independent bigwigs; I would not be astonished to learn that the others include (b) leading members of left groups who have worked with the bigwigs in front organizations; and there could even be a handful of (c) mouthy individuals among them.

[I]n fairness, you could do worse. I am proud to count (a) bigwigs (well, small-time bigwigs), and (b) left group factional operators, and (c) let’s call them people who don’t hate the sound of their own voices, among my friends. But if we want something more representative, something genuinely democratic, there is only one easy and obvious way to get it: just pick the delegates at random out of the entire membership.

Griffiths then fleshes out his proposal a bit:
Continue reading →

Filed under: Deliberation, Elections, Participation, Proposals, Sortition | 1 Comment »

Riz Ahmed’s subway take

Posted on August 25, 2025 by Yoram Gat

“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!!

Filed under: Elections, Sortition, video | 3 Comments »

A predictable critique of Guerrero’s Lottocracy

Posted on August 23, 2025 by Yoram Gat

Niko Kolodny, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley has a lengthy piece in the Boston Review which reviews Alexander Guerrero’s Lottocracy. Unsurprisingly, Kolodny is not sympathetic to the idea of sortition. Predictably, Kolodny finds ample opportunities to criticize Guerroro’s “relentlessly thorough”, eclectic argumentation.

In particular, Kolodny effectively exploits Guerrero’s reliance on the supposed inability of the public to represent its own interests without proper guidance. For example:

Guerrero imagines that each SILL [single-issue, lottery-selected legislatures] would be guided in its deliberation by a poll of those few citizens who somehow are able to take a week off of work and other responsibilities to pay attention to the five day-long discussions of the final five proposals. Again, if the powerful can, in effect, buy off the general public to support a particular electoral party, then why can’t the powerful mobilize a (again, presumably quite small) group to pay attention to the review of proposals for the Water Access and Water Quality SILL and support what they favor? No one but the powerful, one worries, would be minding the store.

Kolodny’s argument above, as well as his other arguments (e.g., his assertion that people cannot be expected to accept offers in an allotted body), are standard. He goes so far as to inflict on his readers the electoralist dogma about how “[b]y choosing some political programs and parties over others, [voters] shape the political/ideological space within which the elected representatives must operate until the next election”. A formula he quotes from Cristina Lafont and Nadia Urbinati’s The Lottocratic Mentality: Defending Democracy Against Lottocracy.

Such arguments are easily refuted and have been refuted many times. However, Guerrero’s book is not up to the task. Instead, the book makes it easy for the opponents of sortition – or more to the point, for the opponents of democracy – to rehash the old superficial talking points and present them as “a splendid and convincing recent counterpoint to arguments for lottocracy”.

Filed under: Academia, Books, Elections, Press, Proposals, Sortition | 1 Comment »

Lenin’s theory of elections

Posted on August 17, 2025 by Yoram Gat

In a short article called “‘Democracy’ and Dictatorship” published on January 3, 1919, Vladimir Lenin asserts that

[As long as] the bourgeoisie continue to keep the entire apparatus of state power in their hands, [and] a handful of exploiters continue to use the […] state machine[, e]lections held in such circumstances are lauded by the bourgeoisie […] as being “free”, “equal”, “democratic” and “universal”. These words are designed to conceal the truth, to conceal the fact that the means of production and political power remain in the hands of the exploiters, and that therefore real freedom and real equality for the exploited, that is, for the vast majority of the population, are out of the question.

It seems that for Lenin “the means of political power that remain in the hands exploiters” which render elections undemocratic are primarily the channels of mass communication:

In practice the capitalists, the exploiters, the landowners and the profiteers own 9/10 of the best meeting halls, and 9/10 of the stocks of newsprint, printing presses, etc.. The urban workers and the farm hands and day laborers are, in practice, debarred from democracy by the “sacred right of property” (guarded by the Kautskys and Renners, and now, to our regret, by Friedrich Adler as well) and by the bourgeois state apparatus, that is, bourgeois officials, bourgeois judges, and so on. The present “freedom of assembly and the press” in the “democratic” (bourgeois democratic) German republic is false and hypocritical, because in fact it is freedom for the rich to buy and bribe the press, freedom for the rich to befuddle the people with venomous lies of the bourgeois press

Thus, it is by manipulating the voters through what would today be called “misinformation” or “disinformation” (or what a few years ago was called “fake news”), that the elites manage to get majorities to vote against their own interests and maintain the situation in which they are controled by the elites. And in general, any electoralist system (whether in a capitalist system, or in a nascent socialist system, which he calls a “dictatorship of the proletariat”) is a system of oppression because the dominant class uses its control of the communication channels to get the voters to support it electorally. Therefore, the dominant class cannot be changed electorally but only by overthrowing the electoral system in one way or another.
Continue reading →

Filed under: Elections, History | 6 Comments »

Anti-sortition attitudes

Posted on August 12, 2025 by Yoram Gat

It is an unfortunate state of affairs that, despite the fact that proposals of empowering allotted bodies do enjoy significant popular support, most people are not mobilized into action by the idea of sortition. Much of that can no doubt be attributed to despair. There is no point in being politically attached to radical ideas since such attachment has insignificant impact on society and is bound to end in frustration, and quite possibly to being seen by friends and acquaintances as slightly unhinged.

Still, it is rather surprising that despite the unending contempt that many people heap on the existing electoralist system, or more accurately, on its outcomes and on those who act within the system, there is still a strong attachment to the idea of elections and aversion toward proposals at eliminating them altogether in favor of a sortition-based system. Of course, a long list of arguments against sortition is available, and they are endlessly regurgitated (often as if they were brand new) to justify the suspicion toward sortition. However, since all of these arguments are easily refuted, it is quite clear that the arguments are not the cause behind the aversion toward sortition, but rather that some underlying attitudes against sortition must be common, attitudes for which the arguments merely serve as rationalizations.
Continue reading →

Filed under: Academia, Elections, Opinion polling, Sortition | 21 Comments »

Allotting judges to speed up the judicial process

Posted on July 9, 2025 by johnedwardtaylor

When I was young, judges did not need to be trained as lawyers, but that was phased out because it was decided that the technical burdens of knowing the law were so great that every judge had to start off as a lawyer. I think that now that AI is coming to the fore, we should rethink that. True, there were major mistakes by untrained judges that prompted this change, but AI is so pervasive now that there is not as much need to have every judge have the same, un-diverse background. The main problem this would address is the huge backlog in the courts. The old saying that “justice delayed is justice denied” has pretty much gone out the window, the court is nothing but delay, delay, delay. I have seen it myself, mostly what they seem to be doing in court cases is finding a date when all parties can get together to hold the case. Then I read old, 20th Century novels (I’m thinking of P.G. Wodehouse stories, of course) and observe with dismay that back then it was routine in those days for minor cases like drunk and disorderly conduct to be tried the next day.

The NEXT DAY!

Why can we not do that now? Why are our standards so low that we have forgotten that? Trump has corrupted the entire American court system so effectively because it is so constipated and blocked up that any change, no matter how crooked, is accepted without a peep. The original democracy of Athens had the solution, but it is forgotten. Rotating sortition. First of all, make every job possible to be done by a “middling” worker (that is, easy enough to be done by the average person off the street. That is what makes a civil service democratic. That is what we lost when “credentialism” ruled out untrained lawyers for consideration as judges). Then limit their time of office, then select randomly, which “sanitizes” the process from exactly what Trump did to the U.S. Supreme Court. I think that AI is a gift of God to enable us to bring democracy into the 21st Century.

Filed under: Proposals, Sortition | 2 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »