When democracy seems everywhere in crisis, it may sound paradoxical, to say the least, that the solution to our troubles is to scrap elections altogether. But that is precisely what political philosopher Alexander Guerrero proposes in his bold and illuminating book, Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections. We should select political officials not by voting, he contends, but by lottery from among the entire adult citizenry.
As radical as it sounds, the idea, indeed the reality, of “sortition”—using random selection to select political officials—is nothing new. Nor is it the prerogative of any particular political persuasion. The Athenians used such a system more than two thousand years ago. The Trinidadian Marxist C. L. R. James celebrated this system when he argued, echoing Lenin, that “every cook can govern.” The idea has seen something of a popular revival in recent years thanks to the writing and advocacy of people like political theorist Hélène Landemore and Belgian historian David Van Reybrouck. And it has been put into practice in a variety of deliberative and citizens’ assemblies, including in Europe and the United States. What sets Guerrero’s analysis apart is that he has thought through how such a system might work in modern societies in exhaustive detail. The result is a landmark argument that must be reckoned with.
Guerrero spends much of the book putting flesh on the bones of the abstract idea of lottocracy, presenting a picture sufficiently well specified for meaningful comparison with real-world electoral democracy. In the rest of the book, he makes the case for the relative superiority of lottocracy and offers ideas about how we might get there from here. The book’s central claim is not that lottocracy is perfect but that, for all its flaws, it is still preferable to other political systems.
Of course, there are many ways to compare political systems. One might ask how well they comport with political equality: the ideal that everyone should have, at some level, the same say over policy. Or one might ask how well they offer opportunities for participation: the ideal that everyone be able to contribute to making policy. Guerrero contends that lottocracy does as well if not better than other systems on these criteria. But his primary interest is different: how well a political system solves problems, whether it delivers the objectively correct policy (which he thinks exists). While the capacity of a political system to solve problems—to, among other things, make people’s lives better—may not be a condition of a system’s counting as democratic, Guerrero is certainly right that it is something that we should want.
The argument is superbly detailed, even relentlessly thorough. Guerrero offers a response to just about every objection a reader might think of. But ultimately, the case is not convincing.
"Save Democracy by doing something other than Democracy" okbuddy
This is not a new idea, Douglas Adams literally parodied "lottocracy" in HHGTTG. The only thing this is really attempting to solve for is reducing the ratio of politicians who want to be politicians. It doesn't eliminate it, and it doesn't actually do anything to prevent the people who do get selected from being corrupted by outside influences.
But his primary interest is different: how well a political system solves problems, whether it delivers the objectively correct policy (which he thinks exists).
Ah, here is the real crux of the issue. This is just False Consensus bias in action: Guerrero thinks that if you choose a truly random selection of people (and experts) they'll all end up implementing what Guerrero thinks is the "objectively correct policy".
Ultimately, you are either Autocratic, believing that people should not be the ultimate arbiters of their own lives, or you are Democratic, and do. Autocracy is the realm of narcissists who believe they know best for others. Democracy is the realm of egalitarians who believe they only know best for themselves.
I have seen "lottocratic" systems in person, because several Bay Area makerspaces are run this way, and you'll never guess whether they end up creating fixed hierarchical systems that undermine the random selection.
Hell, the most common way is hinted at right in the article, where participation in the lottery will be limited down to a group of supposed experts (which means people whose views comport with the group selecting the experts, NOT some objective measure).
Hierarchy is the problem, not how you draw the pyramid.