The Paradox of Democratic Selection: Is Lottery Better than Voting?
2015 (English)In: Parliamentarism and Democracy Theory: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives / [ed] Kari Palonen, Jose Maria Rosales, London-Leverkusen: Verlag Barbara Budrich, 2015, 1, 229-253 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
My aim in this chapter is to critically discuss the benefits and pitfalls of using sortition today, in comparison to voting and electoral representation. More specifically, my arguments are divided in four sections. I begin by addressing the possible reasons that drive klerotarians away from electoral representation, such as systemic political corruption (1). Next, I question alternative modes of political outsourcing, such as the inclusion of civil society actors and the implementation of quotas (2). I continue by discussing the democratic legitimacy of sortition by dividing the subject in two questions: (a) political equality and (b) political participation (3). Last, I focus on the type of political representation that the lot produces, viewed from the perspectives of descriptiveness, authorization and accountability (4). In conclusion, I suggest that lotteries may offer valuable improvement to current practices of democratic selection, but only if special measures are taken -such as compulsory universal eligibility- to compensate for the limitations they entail.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
London-Leverkusen: Verlag Barbara Budrich, 2015, 1. 229-253 p.
democracy, elections, sortition, participation, selection, representation
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalization Studies)
Research subject Political Science
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-232267ISBN: 978-3-8474-0158-2OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-232267DiVA: diva2:747417