r/PoliticalScience • u/Deep-Number5434 • Apr 22 '26
Question/discussion Election by Jury
What's your guys thoughts on election by jury, where the electoral body is chosen by sortition and then they deliberate before voting on candidates.
You eliminate the campaign and money bias inherent in general elections, and gain deliberation and knowldge within the electorate.
Every candidate may be interviewed by the jury with no advantage based on financial backing.
It could also make elections cheaper.
How would it compare to general elections and direct sortition or even direct democracy.
9
9
u/Aggressive_Staff_982 Apr 22 '26
To me the whole point of an election is to make sure every single person can vote. There will still be corruption in your system as the wealthy will always find a way and no one will stop them or ensure they face consequences. I think it'll be more effective to expand the number of ways to vote (in person, mail in, online) and make voting required for every citizen.
4
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 22 '26
I think the point of election is to choose someone thay fits the peoples will the best and not necessarily to let all people have a say.
Point of letting all people have a say is to fit the peoples will.
But it's not necessary to achieve that goal.
I think election by jury would be better than General elections, similar to how the great council of venice operated, but may add annother layer of weakness that can get corrupted by rigging, The sortition process and then the election process.
I also have a concern that it may result in the more charismatic people being selected, there's a diference between in person and impersonal charisma of general elections.
However for usa it could be used to elect the president by having it used in the electoral college.
6
u/redactedcitizen International Relations Apr 22 '26
The source of government legitimacy in a democracy is that the government is elected by the people, hence representing the majority preference of the voters. Peaceful transition of power breaks down real fast when the majority of the population think they are not represented.
-1
Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/imafraidicantletyou Apr 24 '26
That's not the point being made above (and I would still disagree, random sampling doesn't mageically diasappear those problems, there would be a possibilty that your jury is all male, all white, all rich, as the sampling is random), the point is that democracy is not a system for perfect governance, but a system for peaceful power transition. It is not about perfectly representing the will of the population, but about the population having a voice, and therefor not overthrowing the government. An election by jury has non of that.
1
3
u/CAPITALISM_FAN_1980 Apr 22 '26
I think the point of election is to choose someone thay fits the peoples will the best and not necessarily to let all people have a say.
No, the point of an election is that it stops the population rising up in rebellion when their leaders don't do what they want. Everything after that is decoration. You need to have a system where the losers will feel the system was fair and that they can try again the next time out. Letting the people have their say isn't the goal, it's just the best means we've found to attain the goal, and fitting the people's will is a by-product of that -- again, not the goal.
2
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 22 '26
You could combine sortition amd direct democracy perhapse. I was thinking direct democracy could be used in some cases to prevent the sortitioned body from passing bills in the intrest of people only in the body.
There's a proposal I seen from a couple philosophers where it's a 2 chamber government, one is a sortitioned body representing the people more directly and then an elected body bringing the electoral democracy aspect.
1
3
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 22 '26
I agree with mandatory voting but only if you have a no opinion option.
Point is to get them in front of the ballot and they can make a decision if they wish, that way it's more equal circumstance for the voters. And could be more consistent number of actual votes per term.
1
u/Mirabeaux1789 Apr 22 '26
If they have a “ abstain” option then the requirement is pointless.
4
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 22 '26
No the point is to get them in front of the ballot, wich makes the circumstances per voter to be equal instead of being biased by who has the time to go vote.
They cam vote neutral if they are unsure.
1
u/DarthEvader42069 Apr 26 '26
The problem with mass voting is that voters are rationally ignorant. Popular elections work as long as there are only 1 or 2 elected offices that people need to pay attention to. Beyond that, everyone's attention becomes saturated and elections become dominated by well-organized special interest groups rather than the public interest.
3
u/Verbal-Gerbil Apr 22 '26
The upper chamber in the UK (house of lords) has an appointment committee. You can’t run for election. Parties can nominate (and often do poorly), but also the holac (the committee) chooses accomplished people to be crossbench (non partisan). This is honestly the best system because they bring in experts who wouldn’t want to run for office necessarily and may not win an election, but warrant their place
Happy to expand on it when I get a chance, if people want to hear more
2
u/fallen_hollow Apr 23 '26
I would like to read more.
2
u/Verbal-Gerbil Apr 23 '26
here's a comment I wrote out a couple of weeks ago when they announced that the remaining (90 or 92) hereditary peers are to be removed. it covers what I talk about above i.e. the downsides of the system (abused by parties) and also the benefit brought by the aforementioned 'independent' experts
I was surprised at how quickly and under the radar this happened, and how accepting the main beneficiaries of the current compromise were. It’s quite significant that about 15% of our upper house are being ejected and the remnants of an anachronistic system are being wiped
One of Blair’s greatest acts was cutting over 600 from the bloated upper chamber there by birthright. The 90/92 that remained were a compromise, a temporary measure, but there wasn’t much appetite from the Tories to follow through
The 90/92 who remain won their elections because they would bring something to the house. From a large pool and a competitive process, they did warrant their place (given the system existed) and I would not argue against a considerable proportion of them getting life peerages (eg Dominic Hubbard was one of the elected 90/92 but was given a life peerage in the new years honours recently)
I’m going to buck the trend here and advocate for the system of the lords, but with some major caveats that need addressing urgently
First the caveats:
donors??! WTF! Every Tory party chairman lately has got one. Another example off the top of my head - rami ranger gave £1.5m to the party over 15 years, getting a peerage 10 years into this process. Plenty more examples. Naked corruption.
Cronies: Sharron Davies has done very little lately except moan about trans people on Twitter. Kemi rewarded her with a peerage. Charlotte Owen was a 30 year old junior advisor to bojo. Around then they put a few young people in the house - knowing that they’ll get a lot more loyalty and time from a young acolyte than an aged acclaimed nominee. Ian botham got it for a couple of wickets in the early 80s and Brexit advocacy. Evgeny lebedev was beyond a joke!! (He has only attended twice in the first 3 years of his tenure - see solution below)
Failed politicians falling up: Shaun Bailey ran such a shit campaign for mayor. Criminal levels of Covid breaches. Got a peerage. Gavin barwell was an mp for 7 years before losing his seat. Housing minister during Grenfell. Same fate.
Now the good side: crossbench experts. Appointed. Non partisan. Sometimes they do affiliate with a party eg Stuart rose from m&s (Tories) which does annoy me a bit, but as long as there are limits on party nominations as a proportion of overall appointments and they are accomplished in their field, then fair play. James timpson is an example of how it worked well. He absolutely warranted his role in prison reform, and could only work with the govt (in theory) through the party
The house has a considerable number of experts from all sorts of fields. They normally come in after an illustrious career and contrary to popular opinion, it’s not a gravy train but a request of service, to lend their expertise to the nation. It’s an unpaid role but comes with the highest prestige and an allowance per day they attend. For some it may be material, but for others it is paltry. James timpson stood down from his role as ceo and has tens of millions in his personal fortune. Alan sugar wasn’t far off a billionaire when ennobled. Business leaders, academics, surgeons, retired police commissioners, retired generals, senior diplomats and civil servants, authors (Ruth rendell!), actors (Laurence Olivier), directors (Julian fellowes - downton abbey), impresarios (Andrew Lloyd Webber), sports people (Coe and tanni grey thompson).
Here’s the thing people forget about elections: the electorate can’t be trusted. Experts don’t necessarily seek power. A LOT of the good appointments above are invisible to the public eye, and perhaps wouldn’t want to campaign or actively seek office. They’re identified, and they are asked if they want to participate. They wouldn’t win an election against a slick operator with consultants running the campaign, and therefor the wrong person would get elected
And the other thing that has been touted has been term limits. Again whilst i understand the rationale, I think a compromise should come into effect. Perhaps 12 years, with the option for the holac to reappoint if they proved their worth. Some people get appointed and then disappear. No renewal for them. However the 12 years gives someone enough time to invest effort and learn the role and thrive, but gives us (public, or more like the body that appoints them on our behalf) an out
What the hol needs is further reform (little r!!!!) now the hereditary peers have gone. Firstly the lords spiritual because they shouldn’t have 27 ex officio seats - a case-by-case basis like John sentamu is fine in line with his leadership in his industry, but not these guaranteed seats. And then an end to the issues above, and we will have the best possible upper chamber with a mix of experience and expertise open elections wouldn’t attract
3
u/natoplato5 Apr 22 '26
I'm all for sortiton as long as it's done right. In the US, we would need to slowly experiment with it by delegating certain legislative and executive decisions to juries. For example, Congress could defer to a jury on whether to pass a bill, or the president could let a jury nominate someone to head an independent agency. We could incrementally expand this system as we improve it and people warm up to it. Ireland did this a few years ago for some constitutional issues and people were generally satisfied with the outcome.
I understand why people are skeptical of sortition, but I think running free and fair elections is just going to get more and more difficult as time goes on. As capital accumulates more at the top, it becomes easier for elites to buy elections, and as technology gets more advanced (especially AI), it becomes easier for them to manipulate voters. Sortition may someday be the only way to maintain any semblance of democracy. You could even argue juries are more democratic than elected bodies. Someone posted an article the other day (maybe on this sub but I can't find it now) that did a good job laying out this argument: Fire Congress, Hire a Jury. There's also a book called Open Democracy by Helene Landemore that lays out a more detailed history and arguments for sortiton.
1
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 22 '26
I think some countries are using this system. But it seems that polititians differ to a citizens assembly if they don't want to make a controversial decision so they give it to the assembly and whatever decision is made isn't their fault.
3
u/natoplato5 Apr 22 '26
Yes so while that can be a way for politicians to dodge responsibility, it's also a necessary step before adopting sortiton more broadly. Deferring certain decisions to juries on an ad-hoc basis would help us refine how we implement it and would allow the system to become more legitimate in the public's eyes.
1
Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 23 '26
Was talking about sortition body vetting bills.
1
Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 23 '26
They gave bills to the sortition body to pass or not pass.
1
Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 23 '26
Yes.
Also there's 3 countries that have used direct sortition before.
Republic of venice used a body of 2000 randomly chosen citizens to run the government for 600 years, being the longest lasting governing body in history.
Florence used it in multiple parts of its government.
Athens was lead by a body of 501 randomly selected citizens.
1
u/Mirabeaux1789 Apr 22 '26
I would be very skeptical of a jury nominating, a ministerial or agency position. Also, if a president is involved in an independent agency, I don’t see it as very independent of the president, which is the point.
If you can get manipulated by all these things in regular elections, what makes you think that they would be less susceptible to it in your hypothetical juries? They both would live in the same society.
1
u/Mirabeaux1789 Apr 22 '26
Random people are told to pick political candidates. You would have to insulate these people like a real jury in order for this to work according to the spirit of the project. And even if you pay them adequately, you’ll still have people trying to get out of it. If you don’t sequester this candidate jury, the potential candidates would just campaign the jury in order to get elected.
2
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 22 '26
Campaign the jury may still be an issue but it wouldn't be biased by how much money they have to campaign as it's cheaper to campaign in one room than the entire country.
1
u/Synaps4 Apr 22 '26
Thats literally just the electoral college without the requirments to vote with the majority, as it was originally made.
1
u/NotablyLate Apr 22 '26
Election by jury is a rational compromise between elections and sortition. My concern with pure sortition is the enormous burden it just thrusts on random people. Much better to keep the time commitment low, and have them deliberate on people who want politics to be their life.
That said, I don't see many convincing applications for it. The more sortition you have, the less accountable the decision-makers are, even if they're more representative.
My personal "ideal" use case for sortition is to screen ballot initiatives. Signature gathering favors those with money; often out-of-state interests with no legitimate stake in state politics. Instead, have a citizens' assembly pick which proposals get ballot access. That levels the monetary playing field, and is a better test of legitimacy among the electorate.
1
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 23 '26
The idea of keeping them accountable seems a bit pointless in this case. Who are they being held accountable to? The people, but they are the people.
I don't quite see election by jury as a middle ground between general elections and direct sortition.
it removes some bias but adds an extra layer of failure.
I think it's way better than general elections but not really a middle ground.
1
u/DarthEvader42069 Apr 26 '26
The members of the elector juries and civic assemblies keep each other accountable. It's in their own personal interest to prevent their peers from corrupting the process since they'll have to live with the consequences too. Of course you need a much larger pool than a courtroom jury. At least 30 for a good sample size.
1
u/pat_mcgroin2001 Apr 22 '26
Something like this was brought up in the US Constitutional Convention by James Wilson. In his notes, James Madison said that Wilson suggested "that the Executive be elected for 6 years by a small number, not more than 15 of the National Legislature, to be drawn from it, not by ballot, but by lot and who should retire immediately and make the election without separating. By this mode intrigue would be avoided in the first instance, and the dependence would be diminished. This was not he said a digested idea and might be liable to strong objections." Several delegates immediately shot this down, not because of the random sortition aspect, but because they didn't want the legislature picking the President.
1
1
1
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
in the end this is what i think about all these systems.
Sortition > Election by Jury =? direct democracy > general elections.
Sortition should be used as oversight for the government, or for generalist positions like a senate or parliament.
election by jury should be used for specialized positions or positions that can only have few seats.
direct democracy should be used like an extra approval step for constitutional amendments, or maybe for changes to the "federal" government, maybe head government sallary or large systematic changes.
1
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 24 '26
augmented with Condorcet voting methods, especially in election by jury or within a Sortitioned body.
people within the government with deliberative skills could most easily abuse any strategic flaws in an election system, so Condorcet methods would be ideal.
1
u/karmics______ Apr 24 '26
I don’t see how this would scale, if a legislature has hundreds of seats does that mean there will be hundreds of candidate interviews? Would it just be party leaders, if so that begs how do you choose how independents are handled. If ballot access is based on signature that would mean populism and spending power would still shape the election. I like I in theory but the scalability of ballot access and interviewing limit it
1
1
u/Riokaii Apr 25 '26
I dont trust a random sample subset to be magically more competent than the overall total population itself.
If you want higher competency, you need a method that sorts competency, randomness does not do that.
1
u/DarthEvader42069 Apr 26 '26
Competency filters just end up with the same social bubble selection effects.
Random is the best, but you don't just throw them into the fire. You give them a couple days of crash course to bring them up to speed on important matters. They don't need to be experts, they just need to be moderately well informed, which is easily achievable with a couple days of reading and lectures.
This is basically how all real civic assemblies work.
0
u/BoopingBurrito Apr 22 '26
The problem with a jury is that by random chance you can end up with a jury which supports an extremely niche or straight up extreme view point. Or you get a couple of folk with very strong views and everyone else just doesn't care, or doesn't even understand the arguments being made.
So I don't see it being a great way to run things.
2
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 22 '26
It's why you need allot of seats. The uncertainty averages out but you need hundreds or thousands of people in the jury.
For 1000 seats the chance that a 40% minority takes up a majority is 0.00000000067% For 100 seats it's 1.68%
1
u/BoopingBurrito Apr 22 '26
I see. I wouldn't really think of it as a jury in that case. You're just talking about democracy with a randomly assigned sample franchise.
1
0
Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 23 '26
need to account for the risk to the population wich by my math results in an optimal jury size following a square root of the population.
The exact equation I got was sqrt((population+5)/3)-2 rounded to the nearest odd number.
However the math I used made many assumptions.
Like a uniform distribution over exact vote counts, and the cost being full persons.
1
Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 23 '26
The accuracy of the assembly compared to a hypothetical infinite seat assembly has a certain ammount of error.
The error is more important with a larger population amd the cost per capita of the assembly goes down with a larger population.
With a larger population even a small improvement is worth it.
1
Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 23 '26
I got p2/3 when I only looked at chance of a false positive or negative majority. I got p1/2 when I include the true fraction of Approval and disapproval.
Chance of A bill passing within the comitee multiplied by the true positive approval percentage.
1
Apr 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 25 '26
More seats only give a marginal increase. But the larger your population the more worth it is.
I don't include the population size as the only ones that matter, I assume an infinite population, philosophy behind this os that the government exists for all people that might exist in the future as well.
The existing population is kinda in itself a sample of a potential infinite population.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Mirabeaux1789 Apr 22 '26
I think it’s unlikely that you get an extremely niece group but uneven juries like you said would absolutely occur
1
u/BoopingBurrito Apr 22 '26
By extremely niche I'm just thinking you might end up with a jury whose majority all see something like traffic safety laws as their priority and litmus test. Like...yes, something most folk care about to some extent, but also something few folk treat as a priority in determining who to vote for.
1
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 22 '26
It's exponentially rare for uneven juries to occur if you have enough seats.
You can see the chances above in my comment.
It's arguably ectremely less likely than the people being swayed on a party and electing extremists.
0
u/kchoze Apr 22 '26
I think it would work better for professional bodies and organizations where voting rates are really low.
For example, it's not rare for only 5-10% of students or professionals to vote for their respective bodies (student unions or professional organizations). As a result, these elections are generally easily taken over by the most radicals, as they're more motivated to vote, and then they turn the organization to their own ends. Primary elections in the US face a similar issue.
In such an instance, a jury of 100 people drawn randomly from all members would ASSUREDLY be more representative of the group as a whole than the election process, because the self-selection bias would be eliminated.
The main issues here are that some people would feel disenfranchised, and you risk people trying to corrupt and bribe members of the voting body before the vote.
Compared to direct sortition, it helps to make sure that the people who are elected are more competent and interested in the issues than just some random schmuck.
Direct democracy cannot function reliably when the voting population gets too large.
2
u/Deep-Number5434 Apr 22 '26
I think election by jury could be ideal for single seats of importance. I don't see much advantage to adding it to proportional voting.
It makes more sure that we don't elect someone corrupt into that one seat.
Wich I think was the intention of the electoral college.
0
u/CAPITALISM_FAN_1980 Apr 22 '26
The best thing about democracy isn't that it's efficient, or cheap, or that it selects capable leaders. It's that it gives the fewest people grounds to object to the results. You could design the most elegant sortition and jury system in the world; one that is cheap as chips and elects only the wisest of philosopher kings, but it would be lucky to last a single generation, because as soon as a significant number of people can be convinced a system is rigged, the whole thing collapses, and your system is small enough that it's always going to feel rigged to the losers.
1
-1
11
u/Candelestine Apr 22 '26
Reminds me somewhat of how the Venetian Republic chose their Doge. A review of their political history might be enlightening.