Abstract
AbstractThis paper critically compares a deliberative system based on parliamentary elections (an electoral system) and a deliberative system based on sortition (a lottocratic system). Both systems are analyzed in three dimensions. The epistemic dimension concerns the rational quality of the democratic process. The power dimension concerns the distribution of power and the extent to which citizens genuinely control all decisions. The motivational dimension, finally, concerns citizens’ identification with the decision-making process and their willingness to abide by its outcomes. We argue that an electoral system is, in all three dimensions, normatively superior to a sortition-based system. Most prominently, we claim that electoral mechanisms provide visibility to the decision-making process. This enables a form of interactive representation in which citizens and their representatives engage in a joint process of opinion and will formation. Sortition, in contrast, is characterized by a democratically much poorer form of descriptive representation. The selected citizens are a representative sample of the wider citizenry, but they deliberate in a forum that remains mostly disconnected from that wider citizenry and therefore cannot shoulder the process of collective self-government.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference39 articles.
1. Abizadeh, Arash. 2021. Representation, bicameralism, political equality, and sortition: Reconstituting the second chamber as a randomly selected assembly. Perspectives on Politics 19(3): 791–806.
2. Bächtiger, André, and John Parkinson. 2019. Mapping and measuring deliberation. Towards a new deliberative quality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Disch, Lisa, Mathijs van de Sande, and Nadia Urbinati. (eds.) 2019. The constructivist turn in political representation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
4. Fishkin, James. 2009. When the people speak. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Fishkin, James. 2019. Random assemblies for lawmaking: Prospects and limits. In Legislature by lot. Transformative designs for deliberative governance, ed. John Gastil and Erik Olin Wright. 75–100. London: Verso.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献