DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND SORTITION Gil Delannoi (ed.) Les Cahiers du CEVIPOF Avril 2012, n°56 DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND SORTITION CONFERENCE, PARIS, CEVIPOF, OCTOBER 6TH-7TH 2011 Gil DELANNOI SCIENCES PO, CEVIPOF LAURENCE MOREL UNIVERSITÉ DE LILLE-II BARBARA GOODWIN UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA PETER STONE TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN ANTOINE CHOLLET UNIVERSITÉ DE LAUSANNE OLIVER DOWLEN CO-ORGANISATEUR DU PROGRAMME DE RECHERCHE SUR LE TIRAGE AU SORT These papers were presented during the first session of the Research Programme on sortition funded by Sciences Po and held at the CEVIPOF in October 2011. This session was organised by Gil Delannoi, one of the organisers of the Programme. The other two organisers are Oliver Dowlen and Peter Stone. The second session was held in November 2011 and the third in May 2012. A fourth session will be held in October 2012. More are planned. th th CONFERENCE, Paris, CEVIPOF, October 6 -7 2011 CONTENTS ON SEVERAL KINDS OF DEMOCRACY GIL DELANNOI ..................................................................................................... 5 SORTITION AND CONTEMPORARY DEMOCRACY LAURENCE MOREL ................................................................ 19 1. WHAT IS SORTITION? ................................................................................................................. 19 A. A mechanism for selecting alternatives .................................................................................................... 19 1. Randomly .......................................................................................................................................... 19 2. Two kinds of alternatives ................................................................................................................... 19 a. People (for the attribution of goods: typically positions or resources) ............................................................. 19 b. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 20 B. Sortition in the Political Sphere ................................................................................................................. 20 1. Athens and Florence ......................................................................................................................... 20 a. Athens........................................................................................................................................................... 20 b. Florence ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 2. The Rarity of Sortition ....................................................................................................................... 21 2. IS SORTITION A FORM OF DEMOCRACY? ............................................................................... 23 A. Sortition is not Democratic in Essence ..................................................................................................... 23 1. It “only” Represents Equal Opportunity ............................................................................................. 23 a. What is Democracy? ..................................................................................................................................... 23 b. What is Sortition? .......................................................................................................................................... 24 2. However, sortition might be “better” than democracy if only minority government is possible .......... 25 B. Sortition can be democratic (with some adjuncts) .................................................................................... 25 1. Sortition with frequent rotation: diachronic equality ........................................................................... 26 2. Sortition as a Sampling Technique: Synchronic Equality .................................................................. 27 3. “Quasi-direct democracy” .................................................................................................................. 27 C. Direct, Representative, Sortation Democracy ........................................................................................... 28 1. Selection for Positions ....................................................................................................................... 28 2. Recruitment of Assemblies ............................................................................................................... 28 3. A Mixed Regime? .............................................................................................................................. 29 3. SORTITION AND “GOOD GOVERNMENT” ................................................................................. 30 A. The Problem ............................................................................................................................................. 30 B. Competence ............................................................................................................................................. 31 1. Relevance of the Problem ................................................................................................................. 31 2. The Intrinsic Remedy ........................................................................................................................ 32 3. The Extrinsic Remedy ....................................................................................................................... 33 C. Correctness .............................................................................................................................................. 34 1. Definition and Relevance of the Problem .......................................................................................... 34 2. “Better” Rulers versus Responsible Rulers? ..................................................................................... 34 Conclusion: Prospects for Sortition ................................................................................................... 36 DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND LOTTERY DEMOCRACY – TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS? BARBARA GOODWIN……………………………………………………………………………………37 1. FIRST, AN OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUES .................................................................................... 37 2. DEFINITIONS OF DEMOCRACY ................................................................................................. 38 3. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY ............................................................................................. 39 4. DIRECT DEMOCRACY................................................................................................................. 42 5. LOTTERY DEMOCRACY ............................................................................................................. 46 LES CAHIERS DU CEVIPOF – AVRIL 2012/56 6. EVALUATING DIRECT VERSUS LOTTERY DEMOCRACY ....................................................... 47 Conclusions: On Lottery Democracy ................................................................................................. 48 MANY VOICES, DIFFERENT VOICES PETER STONE ...................................................................................................... 51 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 52 1. Intrinsic or Instrumental? ............................................................................................................... 55 2. Many People ................................................................................................................................. 57 3. Many Different People ................................................................................................................... 59 4. Proportionately Many Different People ......................................................................................... 65 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 67 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... 70 DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND PARTY SYSTEM: A BLIND SPOT OF SWISS INSTITUTION/DÉMOCRATIE DIRECTE ET SYSTÈME PARTISAN : UN POINT AVEUGLE DES INSTITUTIONS SUISSES ANTOINE CHOLLET . 73 1. DIRECT DEMOCRACY................................................................................................................. 73 2. ELECTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 74 3. CONSULTATIVE DEMOCRACY .................................................................................................. 76 4. PARTY SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................... 77 5. DEMOCRATIZATION .................................................................................................................... 78 WHO? AND HOW? SORTITION, DEMOCRACY AND GOOD GOVERNEMENT OLIVER DOWEN .................... 81 Déjà parus ............................................................................................................................................................