Sortition: selecting public decision-makers by lot

Sortition is the selection of public officials or decision-making bodies by lot rather than by election. Athenian democracy used it to choose many officials, and Aristotle associated it with democracy itself. Modern citizens’ assemblies use stratified lotteries so that their members resemble the population.

Definition

Sortition means that every eligible person in a defined pool has a chance of selection, and selection is random. Modern practice usually adds stratification: the lottery is run so that the selected group matches the population on chosen characteristics. British Columbia’s 2004 Citizens’ Assembly, for example, chose “one man and one woman from each of B.C’s 79 provincial electoral districts” by “random draw” from a pool reflecting the province’s gender, age, and geographic makeup.⁠¹

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that sortition fits a definition of democracy as equality because citizens have an equal chance of selection.⁠²

Origin and history

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that “Athenian democracy involved direct democracy for the making of laws and sortition for the choice of officials”.⁠² Aristotle, in the Politics, linked the method to democracy and election to other regimes. In William Ellis’s translation, Book IV, chapter IX says “it seems correspondent to the nature of a democracy, that the magistrates should be chosen by lot, but an aristocracy by vote”,⁠³ and describes some who considered Sparta an oligarchy because of “choosing all their officers by vote, and not by lot”.⁠³

Sortition has returned in modern deliberative forums. Ireland’s 2016 Citizens’ Assembly included “99 citizens entitled to vote at a referendum,” randomly selected to be “broadly representative of Irish society”.⁠⁴

How sortition is used and assessed

Hypothetical example of a three-stage design, of a kind used for some modern assemblies:

1. Invitation by lottery. A large random sample of residents receives invitations.
2. Volunteer pool. Those who accept form a pool.
3. Stratified draw. A second lottery selects members from the pool so that the final group matches population targets.

The volunteer stage introduces self-selection. People with more time, interest, or confidence may be more likely to accept, and stratification corrects only for the characteristics it targets. This is the same problem discussed under nonresponse bias.

Arguments for sortition include equal chances, a body that resembles the public (descriptive representation), resistance to campaign money, and members free from reelection pressure. Arguments against include the absence of authorization by voters, no electoral accountability, members’ limited time to build expertise, and dependence on staff and experts who shape the agenda.

Sortition also changes what “legitimacy” means. An elected legislator can say, “voters chose me.” A lottery-selected member can say only, “I was chosen at random, like anyone could have been, and I studied the question.” Those are different claims, and a body’s recommendations carry weight only to the extent that the public accepts the second one.

Common confusions and neighboring terms

• Sortition vs. random sampling. A survey sample is drawn to measure opinion; a sortition body is drawn to deliberate and decide or recommend.
• Sortition vs. election. Election selects by preference and gives authorization and accountability; sortition selects by chance and gives equal opportunity.
• Sortition vs. deliberation. Sortition is a selection method; deliberation is what the selected body does.
• Sortition vs. opt-in sample. Opt-in participation is self-selected from the start; sortition begins with chance, though acceptance adds some self-selection.

How My Vote Forward uses the term

My Vote Forward does not use sortition. Its participants choose themselves, which is why the framework reports them as participants and not as a representative body. The framework’s Representation chapter discusses how different methods of choosing who speaks for whom produce different kinds of legitimacy.

Unresolved questions

• How can acceptance rates be raised so that a lottery-selected body is not dominated by those with the most free time?
• Should sortition bodies ever hold binding power, and if so, how would they be held accountable?
• Could a civic system invite a random sample to supplement self-selected participation, and how would the two be reported?