Beyond Elections: Can Random Selection Save Democracy | Michael Foley | TEDxWilliam&Mary

Key Concepts

Sortition, Democracy, Elections, Political Representation, Wisdom of the Crowds, Cognitive Diversity, Student Government, Political Participation, Campaigning, Legislating, Dark Triad Traits, Homogeneity, Innovation in Government.

Elections vs. Sortition: A Critical Assessment

The speaker argues that the current system of elections, while intended to select the "best and brightest," primarily selects individuals skilled at campaigning, a skill set distinct from effective legislating. Elections reward charisma, ambition, aggression, and potentially "dark triad" traits (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism), leading to legislatures filled with "natural politicians" often more focused on personal advancement than constituent needs. This creates combative and inefficient legislatures.

Example: The American founding fathers believed elections would select a "natural aristocracy" of talented and virtuous leaders.

Quote: "Those who seek power are the least worthy to wield it."

Sortition: A Potential Solution

Sortition, the selection of representatives by lottery, expands the pool of potential representatives to include individuals interested in serving but not in campaigning. This can lead to more cohesive, efficient, and virtuous legislatures. Sortition also eliminates the influence of campaign donors, reducing the incentive for representatives to favor the wealthy and powerful.

Addressing Competency Concerns

The speaker acknowledges concerns about the competency of randomly selected individuals. However, they argue that randomly selected bodies benefit from the "wisdom of the crowds."

Explanation: "Wisdom of the crowds" suggests that even individuals without special knowledge can, as a group, outperform experts.

Supporting Evidence: Aristotle's observation that groups can outperform experts, and modern psychological research stressing the importance of cognitive diversity for group performance.

Example: Comparing a randomly selected group to the 118th Congress, where a significant percentage of members have law degrees, highlighting the lack of cognitive diversity in the latter.

Data: 50% of the Senate and 30% of the House in the 118th Congress had law degrees.

Cognitive Diversity and Group Competency

The speaker emphasizes that maximizing the competency of the group is more important than maximizing the competency of individual representatives. Cognitive diversity, achieved through random selection, enables groups to draw on a wider range of perspectives and experiences, leading to better decision-making.

Argument: Governing society is a broad and complex task that no single background or skill set can fully qualify someone for.

Sortition vs. Direct Referendum-Based Democracy

While direct referendum-based democracy could achieve similar goals, it carries the risk of "mob rule." Sortition mitigates this risk by forcing individuals from diverse backgrounds to engage in face-to-face deliberation and compromise.

Argument: Sortition fosters compromise and unity, unlike the divisive nature of modern politics.

Sortition in Student Government: A Case Study

The speaker advocates for implementing sortition in student government, arguing that it can address the homogeneity of student representatives (typically outgoing students with prior political experience).

Data: At William & Mary, 35% of students major in STEM, yet only 10% of senators are STEM majors. Athletes are entirely unrepresented in the student senate.

Example: The Bolivian experiment, where student governments using sortition shifted from planning school dances to addressing broader issues like building libraries and combating human trafficking.

Data: In the Bolivian experiment, 75% of surveyed students preferred sortition to elections, and 97% would recommend it to other schools.

Conclusion

The speaker concludes by urging experimentation with sortition, particularly in student government, as a means of innovating and improving democracy. They acknowledge the risks of innovation but argue that stagnation is a greater threat.

Quote: "When democracy is put to the test, the politicians won't save you, the elections won't save you, the institutions won't save you. All that exists are your neighbors. Have the courage to empower them."