Objections to Sortition: Randomness and Apathy

From "The Trouble With Elections: Everything We Thought We Knew About Democracy is Wrong," Chapter 13.1

Photo by Mizuno K

This chapter will examine a variety of reasons why some people may be skeptical or critical of the concept of sortition. While many concerns about sortition are merely off the cuff reactions that can be addressed through careful explanation, others are deep-felt or thought-through criticisms. This chapter won’t address all objections (for example, from supporters of religious theocracy, etc.), but I will try to tackle the common ones I have encountered, such as competency and accountability.

Randomness versus the cherished right to vote

When sortition is presented to people for the first time a common reaction is that randomness should not play a role in public policy making. Even if it is carefully explained that the randomness in selecting decision-makers is applied in order to enhance both the representativeness and the rationality of the overall decision-making process, many people have a gut-level distaste for any abandonment of rationality in the choosing of decision-makers. As uniquely rational creatures (even if emotions are calling the shots below the surface), we give the use of rationality pride of place. Why would one give up the potential for making the best possible choices for decision-makers, in favor of an arational, amoral, random process. The answer, of course, is that the ability to use rational and moral reasons for selecting decision-makers also inevitably opens the door to the use of manipulative, bullying, and immoral reasons as well (or preferentially).

A related, though distinct concern, is that the right to vote — the right of every citizen to play a role (even though miniscule) in the selection of policy makers — is felt to be a fundamental right, which much blood has been spilled in order to secure. Any reform that can be seen as giving up this cherished right will be suspect. A mathematical explanation of the inconsequential or de minimis power of a single vote in a mass election generally doesn’t sweep aside this emotional homage, especially when it is thought of as a collective voice, rather than an individual act. Sortition advocates would be wise to promote sortition first and foremost as an alternative to politicians and elite power brokers, rather than as an alternative to voting. Sortition enhances the real political power of ordinary people, as a group, more effectively than voting, rather than taking that power away.

The underlying reason for this devotion to voting is the general assumption that elections are the only alternative to tyranny and dictatorship. Recognizing that there is a third option – actual democracy, through sortition, will take time. It might take years, or generations of positive experience with sortition as a partial, or smaller scale endeavor before voting could be abandoned completely. Elections and politicians must come to be understood as an inferior and oligarchic arrangement. For the foreseeable future, sortition is likely to be part of a hybrid system that maintains elections for certain functions, while embracing sortition for others. In the final chapter I will examine a few transition strategies.

Apathy

The issue of political apathy occurs to many people upon hearing about sortition. If half the population won’t even vote, how can you expect them to do even more by participating in citizens’ assemblies. It is true that the uptake rate of citizens receiving a random invitation to join existing citizens’ assemblies is quite low (thus the need to resort to stratified sampling to approach something like representativeness). It should be noted that this low rate of participation in currently existing sortition bodies is within an environment where the concept is strange and unfamiliar to most people, and nearly all existing mini-publics have no real power – playing only advisory roles. 

One theory suggests apathy results from satisfaction with the status quo. Why spend time with politics if things are going along fine without your involvement. Indeed, studies have shown that anger over political corruption can prompt some people to vote, when they might not vote otherwise. Other theories suggest apathy is the result of alienation and frustration. Anecdotal evidence indicates that such disaffection is the dominant factor. Of course, it is also possible non-voters are merely rationalizing their apathy by asserting a plausible cause — disdain for politicians who are all a bunch of crooks — for some other reason that they themselves may not even recognize. However, a disdain for politicians and politics, and even a history of non-voting, does not necessarily mean an unwillingness to engage in political deliberation. One study conducted by a team of political scientists led by Michael Neblo of Ohio State University found that apathetic Americans, including non-whites and young people – groups especially prone to political apathy – would willingly participate in political deliberation, given a meaningful opportunity. The authors of the study concluded that

“If the political process could be rendered more rational and responsive in their eyes, then they would be more inclined to engage in it robustly.”

Political apathy is also associated with the lower classes. The racial and class disparities in terms of apathy are largely an American phenomenon that it is not matched in many other democracies. To some extent this may reflect the lack of a European-style working class-based political party in the US two-party system. The Democratic Party received most of the available labor union energy by default, while working class voters (those who bother to vote) have increasingly voted Republican in recent years. But the causes of political apathy are more complex than the party system alone. By “apathy” I do not mean simply “not voting.” Voting is a minimalist measure of engagement. As can be demonstrated mathematically, a single vote, by itself, is a virtually inconsequential political act. I am speaking of a deeper political apathy. With no opportunity to participate in any meaningful democratic deliberation, there is no real point to invest effort informing oneself. Political information just feels irrelevant and useless to most people. In his book Saving Democracy: A Plan for Real Representation in America, Kevin O’Leary summarizes the views of numerous political scientists:

“Apathy is sometimes a consequence of a nation’s political institutions and thus, instead of being an immutable quality, can be changed. Simply because we observe patterns of behavior does not mean they are inevitable. The apathy we see, particularly in the less educated and less affluent, for example, may, in fact, be consequences of political institutions or the lack thereof.”

Democratic engagement can be a self-reinforcing feedback loop that leads to higher and higher levels of civic-mindedness, only if citizens engage in political participation that leads to consequences. 

The key concept of rational ignorance, discussed earlier, bears repeating in the context of apathy and competence. Most people recognize that it really isn’t worth their time and effort to learn all about and become competent on political matters, since they can’t really do anything meaningful or useful with that information. The chance that their one vote will change the outcome of an important election is so remote that it isn’t rational to devote effort to learn about the candidates or issues. People who do spend substantial time and effort researching candidates, may do so simply because they accept the dictum that “every vote counts” and haven’t thought through the mathematics and probability of their single vote actually changing the outcome. They may study issues and candidates from a sense of civic duty – a sort of democratic solidarity – or for the intellectual stimulation or being able to participate in a discussion around the water cooler. However, if members of the public knew that their participation genuinely mattered, as in a policy jury, they would have incentive to learn and act earnestly, as they generally do when serving on court juries. In other words, people become competent when they need to. By creating intensive deliberative bodies, sortition creates decision-making institutions that make it rational for participants to climb out of apathy and ignorance. The next post will examine evidence for this gleaned from the study of court juries.