Thread by @danhind

Why are some on the left so wary of sortition? I understand that you wouldn't want randomly selected groups exercising sovereign power, but is there more going on?

The recent historical record shows that *even though random selection has always thus far been used in elite-dominated circumstances* the results are easily as good as those achieved by appointed experts and elected officials - and sometimes much more radical.

A good example is the Irish constitutional convention which proposed the establishment of explicit, enforceable economic rights - including a right to housing eg) constitutionalconvention.ie/AttachmentDown…

It's true that the Eighth Report doesn't exist in most mainstream coverage of the convention, and that the Irish parliament buried it. But this is a problem with the structure of the media (see tweets passim) and in the dynamics of representative democracy (ditto).

I don't want to be starry-eyed about sortition. Like anything it has weaknesses. But it is particularly useful for democrats in two areas: deliberation, where smaller groups can 'stand in' for the citizen body. What they discover, recommend or propose commands attention ...

... because it is formulated by people who, like the vast majority of us, have no prior commitments going in. We don't have to agree with what they come up with, but it is a communicative form that isn't captured by elite interests *in advance and by definition.*

The other area is the supervision of elected elites. Ordinary members of orgs and citizens in national and regional government, selected by lot, are a good way of maintaining a disinterested eye on what elected officials are doing ...

Why wouldn't we want a group of people relevantly like us to have the resources to oversee elites, and to publish reports on their conduct, and the power to launch recall, deselection or impeachment proceedings? (that would be ratified by majority vote)

Of course randomly selected bodies would sometimes behave in ways that harm the majority. But the current system *always* does, or at least has done all my life. The last time it didn't it was because depression and war created a militant (and heavily armed) public opinion.

Potential problems with sortition are reasons for being careful about how it is used - for thinking through what its particular virtues are, not for dismissing it out of hand.

As someone who has argued for democratic reform of the media for a decade, I would rather make the case to a randomly selected group of people than any appointed or self-appointed panel of experts, any parliamentary committee, any group of media owners.

I might be wrong about what I am arguing for - general, democratic control of the resources used for political communication - but I know that most media experts and industry insiders dislike the idea for reasons they are reluctant to make explicit ...

... and most politicians know that the reforms I propose will make them accountable to voters in ways that they are keen to avoid. If your political programme is unpopular with elites, wouldn't you want to able to argue for it - repeatedly - in spaces elites don't dominate?

The existing @PeoplesMomentum constitution incorporates sortition in a tokenistic and toothless way. But the refoundation should look carefully at how it can be used to 1. develop a radical common sense across a range of policy areas and 2. stop elites taking the piss.

A constitution that dedicates power and resources to members as a whole via a media fund as proposed by @leowatkins91 and to groups selected by lot presents a powerful challenge *to all membership organisations.*

Why should *anyone* pay dues to organisations that concentrate *all* power, resources and information in the hands of a few insiders - elected or not? What's wrong with involving non-elites in the governance of organisations that are supposed to about empowering their members?