My primary concern is that a non-expert might not make good decisions concerning a policy. My related concern is that an extremist would make decisions inconsistent with the majority.

And that's not to mention that a lottery-selected candidate is accountable to no one.

I have no illusions this is possible on the federal level, but at the local (and perhaps state) level, it would be an interesting experiment. — Mikie

Massachusetts and some of the other New England states have something similar. Towns are governed by a Board of Selectmen and a Town Meeting. The selectmen are elected and the town meeting is open to all registered voters. In some larger towns that becomes unwieldy so they started using representative town meetings with members selected by lottery from a pool of applicants.

So, is it worth a shot? — Mikie

The practical problem of sortition at the federal level is that congress is elected "by the people" so to speak for the purpose of protecting wealthy interests groups. In order to randomly select for congress and the presidency we'd have to neuter the wealthy interest groups. Fine by me, but the wealthy would object strenuously.

Jury pools are selected sort of randomly, but then are pruned by the two sides of the case during pretrial procedures.

While the idea of random selection for local civic affairs is attractive from several perspectives, there is the problem of selecting from a pool of citizens, many of whom seem quite ignorant of local, regional or world affairs (or local and world geography), basic science, or are functionally innumerate and illiterate. They may be quite intelligent (giving a generous estimation) but aren't well prepared.

That said, there is a substantial proportion of the population who are intelligent, literate, reasonably well informed, and generally cognizant of what's going on in the world. So, how does one separate the wheat from the chaff before you do a sortition?

In most cases I think it would be preferable to randomly select a small pool of people who then serve as a committee who hire (and fire) professional managers. Everything I've seen suggests that having professional city/county managers leads to better governance. You need democratic accountability, but it doesn't need to come by having the winner of a popularity contest manage.



Right, in MA towns below a certain size have to do the town meeting. It works better than you might expect but not great. I was almost the town administrator for a town that had an open meeting and select board. It tends to work fairly well except when you get:

1. Busy bodies who are extremely opinionated and bot open to compromise who are able to hijack the process. These folks often tend to be fairly idealistic.

2. Complex decisions have to be made like borrowing money to repair a very expensive water treatment plant or build a new school. Here, the difficulties of issuing debt, long term planning, etc. often get by the Select Board, and if they only have a part time TA, there is no one to really drive the project.

The other downside is that administrative staff who maybe shouldn't have much influence can end up wielding and ton of unchecked power. If you have a Select Board that is out to lunch you can have their admin staff do quite a bit lol.

Small towns tend to burn through town administrators because they're expected to manage while not being empowered to do so. In most cases the town manager system tends to work a bit better, although it obviously can fail too.

Fall River shows that the city administrator appointed by the mayor system can also go off the rails when the two are too tight (and committing crimes together lol)

Right, in MA towns below a certain size have to do the town meeting. It works better than you might expect but not great. I was almost the town administrator for a town that had an open meeting and select board. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I have affection for the town meeting in my town, but it can definitely be clunky.

My primary concern is that a non-expert might not make good decisions concerning a policy. My related concern is that an extremist would make decisions inconsistent with the majority. — NotAristotle

But that’s happening already. Trump was hardly an expert in anything, and pretty extreme.

Take a look at the republican candidates. Good lord. Politics is almost like survival of the dumbest.

Towns are governed by a Board of Selectmen and a Town Meeting. — T Clark

Yeah I know. I’m a Masshole at heart, having lived there most of my life. Similar structures here in NH. But are any of them selected by sortition?

In some larger towns that becomes unwieldy so they started using representative town meetings with members selected by lottery from a pool of applicants. — T Clark

Interesting. I wasn’t aware of this. Do you happen to know which towns?



Well the civics exam is supposed to be a kind of filter, I guess. I share your concerns though. Still intriguing.



But none of this was by sortition, right?

Masshole — Mikie

Interesting neologism. Question: Did you make it up (kudos if you did) or is it in common usage? I lived in Massachusetts for 2 years -- 68-70 -- and I thought it a pretty decent place. Of course, things change over time -- it's probably still a pretty decent place.

I read in today's NYT that Connecticut is having problems with bears. Bears? There?

@T Clark, have you ever in the past, do you now, and might you in the future think of yourself as a "masshole"?

T Clark, have you ever in the past, do you now, and might you in the future think of yourself as a "masshole"? — BC

No one in Massachusetts calls themselves a Masshole. Similarly, no one here ever eats baked beans. Also - you can't park your car in Harvard Yard, there are no parking spaces.

Interesting. I wasn’t aware of this. Do you happen to know which towns? — Mikie

I'm guessing Newton and Brookline do. I was just checking and it says that town meeting members in those cases are elected, not chosen by lottery, so I was wrong.

Did you make it up (kudos if you did) or is it in common usage? — BC

It’s common usage, at least among people in New Hampshire. I wear it with pride.

I was just checking and it says that town meeting members in those cases are elected, not chosen by lottery, so I was wrong. — T Clark

Too bad— I’d like to see how/if it works somewhere closer to home.

But that’s happening already. Trump was hardly an expert in anything, and pretty extreme.

Take a look at the republican candidates. Good lord. Politics is almost like survival of the dumbest. — Mikie

Lack of accountability is still an issue; randomized officials would be insulated from what the majority of citizens deem right. Voting is a virtue of our democracy and randomizing officials rather than electing them would undermine the democratic process, preventing citizens from voting according to what they think is best. If you take away voting, you severely curtail the ability of people to participate in the political process and you disconnect politics from the will of the people.

Voting is a virtue of our democracy and randomizing officials rather than electing them would undermine the democratic process, preventing citizens from voting according to what they think is best. If you take away voting, you severely curtail the ability of people to participate in the political process and you disconnect politics from the will of the people. — NotAristotle

The article argues against this point.

People expect leaders chosen at random to be less effective than those picked systematically. But in multiple experiments led by the psychologist Alexander Haslam, the opposite held true. Groups actually made smarter decisions when leaders were chosen at random than when they were elected by a group or chosen based on leadership skill.

Why were randomly chosen leaders more effective? They led more democratically. “Systematically selected leaders can undermine group goals,” Dr. Haslam and his colleagues suggest, because they have a tendency to “assert their personal superiority.” When you’re anointed by the group, it can quickly go to your head: I’m the chosen one.