Suchergebnisse
Filter
210 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
Trends in Theorizing Sortition
In: International Political Science Abstracts, Band 74, Heft 2, S. 205-216
ISSN: 1751-9292
In recent years, political scientists have devoted increasing attention to sortition – the random selection of ordinary citizens for political decision-making. This has been accompanied by a number of real-world experiments in which randomly-selected bodies provide input into the political process. The result has been a large and growing literature on the topic. Recent contributions to that literature have detailed proposals for expanded use of sortition, most of which combine election and sortition in innovative and ambitious ways. The use of sortition in these proposals is justified in various ways, many of which involve the way random selection can generate bodies capable of high-quality deliberation. There is more controversy regarding the connection between sortition and democracy. Some regard sortition as a uniquely democratic selection mechanism, while others regard election and sortition as advancing competing democratic values, generating the need for a tradeoff between them. Future research on sortition will no doubt further explore both the value of sortition and its democratic credentials.
Sortition and Equality
In: Western Political Science Association 2010 Annual Meeting Paper
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
Working paper
A gradualist path towards sortition
Conventional wisdom holds that building democracy takes time. Deliberative democracy will likely prove no exception. To that end, this chapter will explore one possible path towards more deliberative institutions and decision-making in the form of Gastil and Wright's proposal for a Sortition Chamber. Our thesis is that deliberative innovations, notably a sortition chamber, require a gradualist approach to implementation. While other authors in this volume may take for granted that some form of sortition chamber will be institutionalized and focus instead on design questions, we probe the necessary conditions preceding institutionalization. To support this thesis, we shall make an argument comprising four main claims. 1.) Sortition is a promising deliberative innovation. 2.) A strong, unaccountable deliberative device like sortition may delegitimize citizen deliberation and future deliberative innovations, in particular a sortition chamber. 3.) A weaker deliberative device like citizens' consultation is effective though often blocked by a lack of institutional footing. 4.) Citizens' consultation, once proven to be effective and regular, opens one path towards enhanced deliberative innovations like the sortition chamber. Claim 1.) will not be developed here beyond the point that a sortition chamber's "hybrid legitimacy" may allow it to overcome critiques addressed to one-shot, single-issue consultative or 1 empowered mini-publics which may lack institutional footing1. Such mini-publics face multiple challenges: significant social or political uptake, electoral accountability, capture by interests, political redundancy, representativeness, biases, frames2. If a sortition chamber prima facie meets or precludes these different critiques, it represents a striking contribution to democratic innovations beyond mini-publics. That said, we must work out claims 2.), 3.) and 4.) in individual sections below. While examples in 3.) and 4.) will mainly be drawn from the European Union, we maintain that this argument is broadly applicable at local, regional national and transnational levels. We argue that, if institutionalizing consultative mini-publics is desirable and feasible at the EU level, it will be all the more so at other levels throughout the decision-making process' different stages.
BASE
A gradualist path towards sortition
Conventional wisdom holds that building democracy takes time. Deliberative democracy will likely prove no exception. To that end, this chapter will explore one possible path towards more deliberative institutions and decision-making in the form of Gastil and Wright's proposal for a Sortition Chamber. Our thesis is that deliberative innovations, notably a sortition chamber, require a gradualist approach to implementation. While other authors in this volume may take for granted that some form of sortition chamber will be institutionalized and focus instead on design questions, we probe the necessary conditions preceding institutionalization. To support this thesis, we shall make an argument comprising four main claims. 1.) Sortition is a promising deliberative innovation. 2.) A strong, unaccountable deliberative device like sortition may delegitimize citizen deliberation and future deliberative innovations, in particular a sortition chamber. 3.) A weaker deliberative device like citizens' consultation is effective though often blocked by a lack of institutional footing. 4.) Citizens' consultation, once proven to be effective and regular, opens one path towards enhanced deliberative innovations like the sortition chamber. Claim 1.) will not be developed here beyond the point that a sortition chamber's "hybrid legitimacy" may allow it to overcome critiques addressed to one-shot, single-issue consultative or 1 empowered mini-publics which may lack institutional footing1. Such mini-publics face multiple challenges: significant social or political uptake, electoral accountability, capture by interests, political redundancy, representativeness, biases, frames2. If a sortition chamber prima facie meets or precludes these different critiques, it represents a striking contribution to democratic innovations beyond mini-publics. That said, we must work out claims 2.), 3.) and 4.) in individual sections below. While examples in 3.) and 4.) will mainly be drawn from the European Union, we maintain that this argument is broadly applicable at local, regional national and transnational levels. We argue that, if institutionalizing consultative mini-publics is desirable and feasible at the EU level, it will be all the more so at other levels throughout the decision-making process' different stages.
BASE
A gradualist path toward sortition
In: http://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/38169
Conventional wisdom holds that building democracy takes time. Deliberative democracy will likely prove no exception. To that end, this chapter will explore one possible path towards more deliberative institutions and decision-making in the form of Gastil and Wright's proposal for a Sortition Chamber. Our thesis is that deliberative innovations, notably a sortition chamber, require a gradualist approach to implementation. While other authors in this volume may take for granted that some form of sortition chamber will be institutionalized and focus instead on design questions, we probe the necessary conditions preceding institutionalization. To support this thesis, we shall make an argument comprising four main claims. 1.) Sortition is a promising deliberative innovation. 2.) A strong, unaccountable deliberative device like sortition may delegitimize citizen deliberation and future deliberative innovations, in particular a sortition chamber. 3.) A weaker deliberative device like citizens' consultation is effective though often blocked by a lack of institutional footing. 4.) Citizens' consultation, once proven to be effective and regular, opens one path towards enhanced deliberative innovations like the sortition chamber. Claim 1.) will not be developed here beyond the point that a sortition chamber's "hybrid legitimacy" may allow it to overcome critiques addressed to one-shot, single-issue consultative or 1 empowered mini-publics which may lack institutional footing1. Such mini-publics face multiple challenges: significant social or political uptake, electoral accountability, capture by interests, political redundancy, representativeness, biases, frames2. If a sortition chamber prima facie meets or precludes these different critiques, it represents a striking contribution to democratic innovations beyond mini-publics. That said, we must work out claims 2.), 3.) and 4.) in individual sections below. While examples in 3.) and 4.) will mainly be drawn from the European Union, we maintain that this argument is broadly applicable at local, regional national and transnational levels. We argue that, if institutionalizing consultative mini-publics is desirable and feasible at the EU level, it will be all the more so at other levels throughout the decision-making process' different stages.
BASE
Sortition. Theory and Practice
In: Revue française de science politique, Band 62, Heft 1, S. 132-133
ISSN: 0035-2950
Sortition: Theory and Practice
In: Perspectives on politics: a political science public sphere, Band 9, Heft 4, S. 944-945
ISSN: 1537-5927
Sortition: Theory and Practice
In: Public choice, Band 147, Heft 1-2
ISSN: 0048-5829
Bagg on Sortition and Democracy
Blog: Legal Theory Blog
Samuel Bagg (University of South Carolina - Department of Political Science) has posted Sortition as Anti-Corruption: Popular Oversight Against Elite Capture (American Journal of Political Science, 2022) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Random selection for political office—or "sortition"—is increasingly...
Sortition, voting, and democratic equality
In: Critical review of international social and political philosophy: CRISPP, Band 19, Heft 3, S. 339-356
ISSN: 1743-8772
Sortition, voting, and democratic equality
In: Critical review of international social and political philosophy: CRISPP, Band 19, Heft 3, S. 339
ISSN: 1369-8230