In recent years, political scientists have devoted increasing attention to sortition – the random selection of ordinary citizens for political decision-making. This has been accompanied by a number of real-world experiments in which randomly-selected bodies provide input into the political process. The result has been a large and growing literature on the topic. Recent contributions to that literature have detailed proposals for expanded use of sortition, most of which combine election and sortition in innovative and ambitious ways. The use of sortition in these proposals is justified in various ways, many of which involve the way random selection can generate bodies capable of high-quality deliberation. There is more controversy regarding the connection between sortition and democracy. Some regard sortition as a uniquely democratic selection mechanism, while others regard election and sortition as advancing competing democratic values, generating the need for a tradeoff between them. Future research on sortition will no doubt further explore both the value of sortition and its democratic credentials.
AbbasN.SintomerY. (2021). Les trois imaginaires contemporains du tirage au sort en politique: démocratie délibérative, démocratie antipolitique ou démocratie radicale?Raisons politiques, 2(82), 33–54[See Abstr. 72.1544].
2.
AbizadehA. (2021). Representation, bicameralism, political equality, and sortition: Reconstituting the second chamber as a randomly-selected assembly. Perspectives of Politics, 19(3), 791–806. [See Abstr. 72.1810]
3.
BouriciusT. G. (2013). Democracy through multi-body sortition: Athenian lessons for the modern day. Journal of Public Deliberation, 9(1), 1–19.
4.
BouriciusT. (2018). Why hybrid bicameralism is not right for sortition. Politics & Society, 46(3), 435–451. [See Abstr. 69.32]
5.
CordierL. (2021). Échapper à la conflictualité ? Le tirage au sort comme outil de management et d’union nationale. Raisons politiques, 2(82), 91–105. [See Abstr. 72.1581]
6.
CourantD. (2021). Les démocraties du tirage au sort: légitimités et modèles institutionnels en conflit. Raisons politiques, 2(82), 13–31. [See Abstr. 72.1582]
DrewJ. (2019). Can local government by lottery increase democratic responsiveness. Policy & Politics, 47(4), 621–636. [See Abstr. 70.3417]
9.
FarrellD. M.StoneP. (2020). Sortition and mini-publics: A different kind of representation. In RohrschneiderR.ThomassenJ. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Representation in Liberal Democracies, (pp. 228–246). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
FishkinJ. S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11.
FishkinJ. S. (2018). Random assemblies for lawmaking? Prospects and limits. Politics & Society, 46(3), 359–379. [See Abstr. 69.598]
12.
GastilJ.WrightE.O. (2018). Legislature by lot: Envisioning sortition within a bicameral system. Politics & Society, 46(3), 303–330. [See Abstr. 69.81]
13.
HeB.WarrenM. E. (2017). Authoritarian deliberation in China. Daedalus, 146(3), 155–166. [See Abstr. 68.1288]
14.
HennigB. (2017). The End of Politicians: Time for a Real Democracy. London: Unbound.
15.
HongL.PageS. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(46), 16385–16389.
16.
JacquetV.NiessenC.ReuchampsM. (2022). Sortition, its advocates and its critics: An empirical analysis of citizens’ and mps’ support for random selection as a democratic reform proposal. International Political Science Review, 43(2), 295–316. [See Abstr. 72.4942]
17.
LandemoreH. (2020). Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
MallesonT. (2018). Should democracy work through elections or sortition?Politics & Society, 46(3), 401–417. [See Abstr. 69.146]
19.
OwenD.SmithG. (2018). Sortition, Rotation, and Mandate: Conditions for political equality and deliberative reasoning. Politics & Society, 46(3), 419–434. [See Abstr. 69.178]
SintomerY. (2018). From deliberative to radical democracy? Sortition and politics in the twenty-first century. Politics & Society, 46(3), 337–357. [See Abstr. 69.208]
22.
SouthallR. (2018). The case for sortition: Tackling the limitations of democracy in South Africa. Politikon, 45(2), 245–260. [See Abstr. 68.7171]
23.
StoneP. (2011). The Luck of the Draw: The Role of Lotteries in Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
StoneP.MalkopoulouA. (2022). Allotted chambers as defenders of democracy. Constellations, 29(3), 296–309.
25.
TridimasG. (2019). Democracy without political parties: The case of ancient Athens. Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(6), 983–998. [See Abstr. 70.5501]
26.
UrbinatiN. (2021). Tirage au sort et dépolitisation : 20e et 21e siècles. Raisons politiques, 2(82), 73–89. [See Abstr. 72.1715]
27.
Van ReybrouckD. (2016). Against Elections: The Case for Democracy, trans. WatersLiz. London: The Bodley Head.
28.
VandammeP.-E. (2018). Le tirage au sort est-il compatible avec l’élection?Revue française de science politique, 68(5), 873–894. [See Abstr. 69.234]
29.
VandammeP.-E. (2021). Tirage au sort et conscience des injustices. Raisons politiques, 2(82), 107–124. [See Abstr. 72.2331]
30.
VandammeP.-E.JacquetV.NiessenC.PitseysJ.ReuchampsM. (2018). Intercameral relations in a bicameral elected and sortition legislature. Politics & Society, 46(3), 381–400. [See Abstr. 69.415]
31.
Verret-HamelinA.VandammeP.-E. (2021). The green case for a randomly-selected chamber. Contemporary Political Theory, 21(1), 24–45. [See Abstr. 72.5229]
32.
WrightE. O. (2018). Postscript to Gastil and Wright: The anticapitalist argument for sortition. Politics & Society, 46(3), 331–335. [See Abstr. 69.247]
