#### Why Sortition Hasn’t Replaced Elections ###### 1. Lack of Legitimacy in Public Perception Modern democracies are built on the principle of consent through elections. Citizens view elections as a direct way to express their preferences. Random selection, by contrast, may be seen as [[Arbitrary]], undermining the perceived legitimacy of those chosen. People are more likely to trust leaders they actively select, even with the imperfections of electoral systems. ###### 2. Representation and Accountability • Accountability: Elections allow voters to reward or punish representatives for their performance, fostering a sense of accountability. Sortition, by its nature, lacks this mechanism, as randomly selected individuals do not need to answer to a constituency. • Skill and Expertise: Critics argue that sortition does not guarantee the selection of individuals with the knowledge or skills necessary for complex policymaking. Elections, while imperfect, tend to favour candidates who campaign on relevant expertise or policies. ###### 3. Scalability in Complex Societies Ancient Athens, often cited as a successful example of sortition, was a relatively small, homogeneous city-state. Modern democracies are far larger and more diverse, with complex institutional systems that require sustained expertise, negotiation, and leadership—roles not easily entrusted to randomly selected individuals without preparation. ###### 4. Elite Resistance Political elites and established institutions benefit from the status quo. Elections are embedded in existing power structures, and transitioning to sortition would disrupt these arrangements, making it unlikely to gain support from those in power. ###### 5. Cultural and Historical Precedents The modern concept of democracy has evolved alongside elections, creating a strong cultural association between the two. This historical precedent reinforces the perception that elections are the most democratic method of governance. ### Would Sortition Be More Democratic? ##### 1. Arguments For Sortition • Equality of Opportunity: Random selection eliminates barriers like wealth, connections, and media influence, ensuring a truly equal chance for all citizens to participate in governance. • Reduction of Corruption: With no campaigns or party structures, sortition removes the incentives for lobbying, campaign financing, and other forms of influence that can corrupt electoral democracies. • Descriptive Representation: A randomly selected body is more likely to reflect the demographic diversity of society in terms of gender, race, age, and socioeconomic status than elected legislatures dominated by elites. ##### 2. Democratic Potential Sortition could complement elections rather than replace them entirely. For instance: • Citizens’ assemblies chosen by lot could deliberate on specific issues, informing or guiding elected officials. • Oversight bodies selected through sortition could enhance accountability in existing institutions. ##### 3. Challenges to Its Democratisation • Civic Engagement: While sortition ensures broad participation, it relies on the willingness and ability of selected individuals to serve. Some may lack the interest, capacity, or confidence to take on public roles. • Legitimacy in Pluralistic Societies: Without mechanisms to gauge public approval (like elections), sortition-based systems might struggle to gain broad acceptance, particularly in polarised or unequal societies. ### Examples of Sortition in Practice Some modern experiments have successfully used sortition to enhance democratic governance: • Citizens’ Assemblies: In countries like Ireland, sortition-based assemblies have deliberated on divisive issues such as abortion and climate policy, producing recommendations that informed elected officials. • Participatory Budgeting: In several cities worldwide, randomly selected citizens have helped decide how public funds are allocated. While these examples highlight the potential of sortition, they tend to work best in conjunction with, rather than as a replacement for, electoral systems. Conclusion Sortition offers compelling advantages, particularly in terms of fairness, diversity, and reducing elite capture. However, the practical challenges—especially concerning legitimacy, accountability, and scalability—have prevented its widespread adoption as a replacement for elections. Instead, it is increasingly seen as a complement to electoral democracy, offering a more participatory and representative dimension to decision-making processes. For modern societies to embrace sortition more fully, significant cultural and institutional shifts would be required. `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:`