Against Sortition

700 words

“Sortition” is a new word for random selection, as used for juries, with a superfluous variant “Random Sortition.” The variant comes about because, in practice, sortition (i.e. the selection of those who are to rule on a matter) may be manipulated (or “adjusted”) in an effort to reflect the demographic composition presumed to exist in a wider population. This demographic engineering starts with the idea that men and women should be equally represented, and then proceeds to fine-tune the selection so as to account for sub-groups, for example according to ethnicity, age or sexual orientation. Yet, juries are sometimes, if rarely, all-female or all-male, both of which are statistical possibilities.

Note that a jury is intended to be a fair cross-section of the community, not a perfectly balanced one — i.e. “randomness” does not infer balance.

One principle governing juries is that they should be impartial, without prior or specific knowledge of the events they are to rule on. But, when a political matter is under discussion, it is inevitable that some participants will be knowledgeable and have preconceptions prior to any debate or presentation. Already this consideration speaks decisively against the use of sortition in the pretence that it is a neutral mechanism.

Sortition is the basis for “Citizens’ Assemblies.” These are becoming more common, with the Republic of Ireland leading the way and other anglophone countries plus France not far behind.

When a dozen years ago I was reflecting on how to reform our electoral systems I thought long & hard about introducing random factors in order to combat corruption in the political process. Briefly I even advocated some use of sortition, though not with that word. The reasons I soon rejected it are that it assumes a sameness of citizens. This misconception derives from the fixation on “equality” and extending the principle of “equality before the law” to include equality in other respects. It is also anchored in the bad but popular ethics contained in the Golden Rule. (For more on this, see the partly satirical: “A Rogue's Charter, or Not All That Glitters is Golden” at https://www.klasseverantwortung.com/english/gold.html.)

The variety of people, even in an homogenous setting, is enormous, and the settings nowadays are seldom homogenous.

Even if this were not the case, no individual is permanently fitted to engage in discussion of political matters, least of all any which have not previously concerned them.

My final rejection of elements of sortition in political decision-making rests on another consideration. My definition of electoral democracy (which is not the same as a liberal dispensation, this consisting of checks & balances with the rule of law, property rights, freedom of speech and a market economy) is that any citizen who feels a calling to voice an opinion on political matters must be able to do so. That voice may be small and need not carry the same weight as others, but it must be heard. It cannot be heard if decisions are taken or justified by citizens’ assemblies. The individual concerned may never have the good fortune to be invited to a citizens’ assembly, just as they may never be called up for jury service. Or if by chance they are once invited to join a citizens’ assembly, it is unlikely to be on one of the topics which concern them most.

Note a corollary of this principle: Not everyone will feel a calling to form an opinion on political matters, and if so, then not an opinion on every topic in the vast array of politics. People can be useful, and often can contribute more, in other spheres of life, i.e. those where their focus is. No-one should be pressured to vote on matters which are alien to them. It follows from this that a high turnout in an election is not necessarily desirable. What often happens is that those with well-considered, well-informed and passionate opinions (passionate because directly affected) get outvoted by the ignorant. Hence only those with conviction should vote, which cannot be determined by others.

Sortition is advocated as a corrective to the glaring failings of the current parliamentary systems. But “fuzzy democracy” is vastly superior to both sortition and the party machinations of what is misnamed liberal democracy: see https://www.fuzzydemocracy.com/