By Stephen Sokol
This post is about democracy, and why playing the lottery might just be a good idea. This post is also about breaking an idea that has been conditioned into most American citizens by a lifetime of living in a republic: That politics and government are inaccessible to the vast majority of people. In my conclusion, I will put forward some ideas as to how the United States government could go about making this tragic problem less prevalent.
Many Americans, when asked under what type of government their country functions, will answer that it is a democracy. What most do not realize is that this answer, while correct, is incomplete. To be precise, American government is a representative democracy, a very popular form of government the world over. Representative democracy is especially beloved by Western Powers such as the United States, Canada, and many European nations. The term “representative democracy” essentially means that the citizens, instead of directly voting on issues, legislature, etc. elect representatives to vote on these issues for them. The representative’s responsibilities are to represent the will of their voters and to exercise their own judgement in government affairs. This system is designed to create a more efficient decision-making process and to protect minorities, both of which it does reasonably well. However, there are many criticisms of representative democracy.
The first argument against representative democracy is a historical one. As the saying goes, if we do not learn from past mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them, and historically most representative democracies have ended in oligarchies(rule by a few elites). Many fear that to an extent this is already the case with the United States, or at least the beginnings of an unintentional oligarchy are starting to appear. It takes a tremendous amount of money to be successful in politics, which already restrains many qualified people from running. Not only this, but the existence of major parties which dominate the political arena means that only members of those parties are likely to run or be successful, leaving a huge number of more politically independent individuals out of the running. Also, the vast majority of senate and congressional elections are won by people who are already members of those houses, because they have the connections and money necessary to run a more successful campaign. Many worry that these combined forces lead to a somewhat elitist government, which could be in danger of one day becoming an oligarchy. While this may be a somewhat extreme stance, there are other objections brought against representative democracy.
Representatives are elected to be a reflection of those who vote for them. However, representatives are not legally bound to respect the wishes of their constituents once they are in office (though this makes their reelection unlikely). Another issue is that, even though one of the purposes of representatives is to protect minorities, they are elected by a majority to address the majority’s concerns, leaving marginalized groups still potentially underrepresented. A final argument against representative democracy is that representatives are far too focused on reelection, which detracts from their ability to concentrate on the legislature they are elected to help manage. This focus on reelection can also cause politicians to vote in accordance to what their party wants, as opposed to what their conscience demands, so that they will remain popular with their constituents.
One proposed solution is sortition. Sortition is a political system in which the majority of government positions are determined by chance, through a lottery, as opposed to elections. At first glance this proposition may seem completely insane to the majority of readers. Those readers are probably echoing the same question Socrates asked of Athenian democracy thousands of years ago, “Why should I leave the individuals who occupy government positions up to random chance instead of electing those who I know are qualified?” My first response is that, as in the case of jury selection, the use of chance is not completely unprecedented in the american political and legal systems. Essentially the concept of sortition is that political offices would be filled by individuals randomly chosen by lottery from a pool of candidates. There are many benefits to sortition I would like to discuss, but first I will give voice to most of the criticisms against sortition and respond to them.
The first issue sortition faces is that lotteries don’t discriminate. If a lottery determined every government position, we could wind up with an individual completely uneducated in military affairs being a general of the United States army. This would have undoubtedly disastrous consequences. There are some positions that must require skill, and this is why only the majority of government positions can be determined by lottery. The jobs requiring a greater level of skill, such as military and diplomacy, could remain elected offices. An argument still exists, however, that every office requires at least some level of skill. Not only this, but many worry that dangerous people, like psychopaths, would wind up in office. Sortition offers several potential solutions to this problem. One solution would be to narrow the requirements to be in the pool of candidates. Some ways of doing this would be to screen by education, experience, or mandated test scores. Another approach to keeping unqualified individuals out of office would be to allow courts to call the necessary qualifications of an individual into question and bring them to trial on this charge. If they are found unfit for their office they can be removed and replaced. Another massive critique of sortition, and probably the most difficult to respond to, is the inconvenience caused by the process. This same concern exists for jurors, but political offices would have undoubtedly more effect on a citizen’s life. There are, however, solutions to this issue. The first of these solutions is that some of the same selection processes that jurors undergo could be applied, whereby students who will be inconvenienced, those undergoing imminent medical procedures, and those who must care for someone can be excused. Another solution would be government compensation for monetary losses incurred by selection. Yet another solution proposes that the terms of offices be greatly reduced, or the number of mandatory meetings(though the latter is by far the least efficient of the proposed corrections). Another critique of sortition is that it presents the risk of chance misrepresentation, though on the scale of an entire nation’s population, the statistical probability of this issue renders it unnecessary to consider. The final critique of sortition is that politicians could not be held accountable for their actions, as they are not up for reelection. This same argument, however, could be re-interpreted as positive for sortition, as it frees the politicians to make decisions based on their conscience instead of what their party or sponsors would want.
Sortition also has a great many benefits beyond representative democracy. The primary advantage is also the core of the whole concept, cognitive diversity. The argument, sometimes referred to as “the wisdom of crowds”, is that cognitive diversity, or a vast number of varying perspectives, is more valuable than a few experts when making a decision. This theory was proposed by Yale-educated journalist named James Surowiecki. His theory has since gained the support of many behavioral psychologists. The second big contribution sortition can make is fairness to a far greater extent than is possible in a representative democracy. This fairness is due to an unsurpassed ability to represent every citizen regardless of wealth, status, ethnicity, political party, or any other societal condition. Random selection of politicians also pulls the rug out from under the corruption that plagues our government. It does this by removing sponsors, party leaders, PAC’s and all other influencers of elections. Sortition empowers the ordinary citizen, making their voices heard when otherwise they never could have been. Lottery also cures two chronic problems with American voters: Their apathy due to too many elections(voter fatigue), and their lack of desire to become educated on political issues. This system removes most elections, making the people focus more on the few important ones that remain, and forces those who might be randomly selected to be educated in the issues so that they can make intelligent decisions for their country.
Modern technology allows the process of random selection to be completely transparent and beyond influence, observable by the entire American populace. This would alleviate the perceived issues of voter fraud and rigged elections by allowing people to watch algorithms randomly select individuals for civic service.
Surely the American government could not suddenly make the transition to sortition and abandon elections overnight. Neither the citizens nor infrastructure of the United States could survive so sudden, intense, or complete a transition. The transition could be a partial or gradual one, beginning with a small body that determines legislature that is most prone to a conflict of interests such as setting salaries, as well as watching out for government corruption. The next step might include simply replacing a couple house seats with randomly selected individuals. Another step in the transition could be replacing one elected legislative house(i.e. Senate or Congress) with a randomly selected one, perhaps only to agree on legislature that elected officials prefer to avoid due to its controversial nature. Some nations such as the UK, Canada, and Australia are already seriously debating replacing one legislative house in such a way.
The purpose of American government is to be democratic, which means representing the will of the people. It is thus the responsibility of the American government to adapt as unexplored ways of best representing its citizens become apparent. Sortition, while it may not be perfect in its pure form, could ultimately improve the United States government if it were adopted to some extent. It could allow for more fair representation, reduced corruption, and significantly greater involvement of private citizens in determining their fate. I do not pretend to know all the answers about how to implement sortition in US politics, but I do know that the issue is an important one, and it must become the subject of serious discussion in the political arena of the United States as well as among its citizens. This discussion could at least spare us the problems of corruption and inefficiency that characterize our government, and at most save our nation from oligarchy.
