What might change if lawmakers were chosen by lottery rather than elected? The approach, known as sortition, could produce assemblies that better reflect a country’s population and give representatives more freedom to make unpopular decisions. But it would also bring challenges, including preparing people to handle complex policy and ensuring they remain accountable to the public.
The idea has historical precedents. In ancient Athens, most public offices were assigned by lot among a limited group of male citizens, with specialist roles such as military and financial posts excluded. The system was considered more democratic than elections, which were seen as favoring wealth and influence. Sortition has also been used in other historical republics and in more recent citizens’ assemblies, including discussions of climate policy in France.
Brett Henning, co-founder of the Sortition Foundation, argues that randomly selected representatives would be less vulnerable to lobbying, campaign finance pressures and the need to win re-election. A legislature drawn from different parts of society might also be less dominated by people with the money or connections needed to enter conventional politics.
However, randomly selected citizens would often begin without experience in public office. The source cites OECD data indicating that participants may need months of preparation to assess complicated questions. Ireland’s citizens’ assembly on abortion, for example, met for 11 months before producing an advisory proposal, rather than binding legislation. Applying a similar process to every issue a parliament handles could make decision-making slow and costly.
Participation also affects how representative an assembly can be. In the Irish example, only 33% of people selected accepted the invitation. If service were unpaid or voluntary, those with inflexible jobs or family responsibilities might be less able to take part. Paying participants could help, but would carry a cost for the state.
A representative sample is not automatically a representative democracy, the article argues. People in the same demographic or professional group may have sharply different views, while voters may feel they have less influence if they have no say in who represents them. Randomly selected lawmakers would also lack the prospect of re-election, raising questions about incentives and long-term policy planning.
Experiments with mixed systems have offered one alternative: citizens chosen by lot develop proposals that are then put to a public vote. Assemblies in Canada between 2004 and 2007, and in the Netherlands in 2006, considered changes to electoral systems. The Canadian proposal was rejected by voters, while the Dutch government set aside the assembly’s recommendations. The source notes that political opposition, hostile media coverage and limited public engagement affected these experiments.
A mathematical model developed by physicist Alessandro Pluchino and colleagues at the University of Catania also points towards a hybrid approach. Their model compared a legislature made up of elected members, one composed entirely of randomly selected members, and a combination of the two. It found that an all-elected parliament could pass many measures with limited broad public benefit, while an all-selected assembly could produce fewer proposals. The model’s most effective arrangement combined elected and randomly selected members, with the latter able to challenge party-line voting without governing alone.
The proposal remains theoretical, but it frames the central debate: sortition may address some weaknesses of elections, yet it does not remove the need for expertise, public accountability and a way for citizens’ political preferences to shape decisions.
Sources: Focus.it.