Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:47:16.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Two Anti-Democratic Uses of Sortition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Filimon Peonidis
Filimon Peonidis*
Affiliation:
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
*
peonidis@edlit.auth.gr
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After centuries of oblivion, the idea of using civic lotteries to select citizens to participate in major decision-making bodies has started gaining popularity among certain democratic theorists. Undoubtedly, this is an idea worth exploring, given the constantly rising dissatisfaction with the operation of major representative institutions. One should not, however, infer from this fact that any proposed sortition-based institutional arrangement is compatible with basic democratic principles. This article critically examines two such proposals: (a) that we should establish fully powered legislative bodies consisting entirely of allotted citizens and (b) López-Guerra’s enfranchisement lottery, the gist of which is that voting rights should be granted only to a very small random sample of current electors, who will be subjected to a “competence-building process.” The article argues that both proposals run counter to the idea of rule by the people conceived as equally valuable and fully participating members of a self-governing political entity.

Keywords

democracyelectionslegislatureClaudio López-Guerrapopular sovereigntysortitionuniversal suffragevoting competence

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Democratic Theory , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , December 2016, pp. 26 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aeschylus. Suppliants, http://classics.mit.edu/Aeschylus/suppliant.html.Google Scholar
Alterman, Eric. 2004. When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences. Cambridge, UK: Viking.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . Politics, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html.Google Scholar
Asmonti, Luca. 2015. Athenian Democracy: A Sourcebook. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. [1958] 1987. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Bouricius, Terry. 2013. “Democracy Through Multi-Body Sortition: Athenian Lessons for the Modern Day.” Journal of Public Deliberation 9 (1). http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss1/art11 (accessed 12 May 2016).Google Scholar
Bouricius, Terry, and David, Schechter. 2014. “An Idealized Design for Government. Part 2: Executive Branch Accountability.” Systems Thinking World Journal: Reflection in Action 3. http://stwj.systemwiki.org (accessed 12 May 2016).Google Scholar
Brennan, Jason. 2011. “The Right to a Competent Electorate.” Philosophical Quarterly 61 (245): 700–724.10.1111/j.1467-9213.2011.699.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnheim, John. 2006. Is Democracy Possible? Sydney: Sydney University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorcet, Le Marquis de. 1785. Essai sur l’ application de l’ analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix. Paris.Google Scholar
Dowlen, Oliver. 2009. The Political Potential of Sortition: A Study of the Random Selection of Citizens for Public Office. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Estlund, David M. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James S., and Bruce, Ackerman. 2004. Deliberation Day. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, Miranda. 2013. “Epistemic Justice as a Condition of Political Freedom.” Synthese 190 (7): 1317–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, Alexander A. 2014. “Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 42 (2): 135–178.10.1111/papa.12029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Mogens Herman. 1999. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. Trans. J.A., Crook. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Keane, John. 2016. “Are Elections Ruining Democracy?” Conversation, 5 March. https://theconversation.com/are-elections-ruining-democracy-54962 (accessed 12 May 2016).Google Scholar
Landemore, Hélène. 2013. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
López-Guerra, Claudio. 2014. Democracy and Disenfranchisement: The Morality of Electoral Exclusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198705789.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511659935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 2011/2012. “Comment promouvoir la délibération démocratique? Priorité du débat contradictoire sur la discussion.” Raisons Politiques 42 (2): 83–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, John O. 2013. Accelerating Democracy: Transforming Governance Through Technology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nedham, Marchamont. [1656] 2011. The Excellencie of a Free State; or, the Right Constitution of a Commonwealth. Edited and with an introduction by Blair, Worden. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Ober, Josiah. 2008. Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Parkinson, John. 2003. “Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies 51 (1): 180–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peonidis, Filimon. 2013. Democracy as Popular Sovereignty. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peonidis, Filimon. (Forthcoming). “The Dirty Hands Problem in a Democratic Context.” In Philosophy and Crisis, ed. Golfo, Maggini et al. Washington, DC: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runciman, David. 2008. Political Hypocrisy: The Mask of Power, from Hobbes to Orwell and Beyond. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Saunders, Ben. 2012. “Combining Lotteries and Voting.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 11 (4): 347–351.10.1177/1470594X11416783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzberg, Melissa. 2004. “Athenian Democracy and Legal Change.” American Political Science Review 98 (2): 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sintomer, Yves. 2011. Petite histoire de l’ expérimentation démocratique: Tirage au sort et politique d’ Athènes à nos jours. Paris: La Découverte/Poche.Google Scholar
Stone, Peter. 2011. The Luck of the Draw: The Role of Lotteries in Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thucydidis, Historiae, http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.html.Google Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2014. Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth, and the People. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674726383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Reybrouck, David. 2014. Contre les Élections. Trans. Isabelle, Rosselin and Philippe, Noble. Paris: Actes Sud.Google Scholar
Zakaras, Alex. 2010. “Lot and Democratic Representation: A Modest Proposal.” Constellations 17 (3): 455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar