Freedom of Representation—Sortition
The freedom to representation guarantees that citizens will be free to have their views represented in whatever group makes decisions about national laws or budgets. Deciding who will represent the views of the people, whether it is a group or an independent leader, often creates conflict. Elected representatives are vulnerable to corruption, bribery, and bias. Sortition, or selection by lottery, protects the legitimacy of the election process and ultimately allows for a more truthful representation of the people. Examples from history and contemporary politics have proven that sortition is a practical and impartial system of voting that should be integrated into any new society and its constitution.
Sortition is rarely seen in contemporary politics, but it has been utilized in other modern day procedures. It appears we resort, or have resorted, to lottery, or sortition, for allocating organ transplants, judicial case assignments, tax audits, hunting licenses, military service, and jury pools, among others. For most, allocation by sortition seems to be available as a tie-breaking device. It is brought forth when two or more people have equal claims to a scarce good or service that cannot be divided among them by appealing to other allocation mechanisms (DeNardis 20, 2011). This idea of a tiebreak, when two people having equal claims to a good or service, could essentially be the solution to the conflict we have with political parties now. Both parties have equal claims that their way is the right way. Rather than electing representatives from these two polarized ruling parties and allowing gridlock, a lot could be used to vary the pool of representatives. Because of well-known statistical characteristics of large numbers, the views of members of Congress would correspond much more accurately with the views of the whole population than those of our present congressmen do. Once in Congress, members would be free, as...
Bibliography: Rodriguez, A., & DeNardis, L. (2011). Can Allocation by Sortition Resolve the Connecticut Education-Financing Impasse?. International Journal Of Education, 3(2), 1-28. doi:10.5296/ije.v3i2.1138
Dowlen, O. (2009). Sorting Out Sortition: A Perspective on the Random Selection of Political Officers. Political Studies, 57(2), 298-315. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00746.x
Lockard, Alan. (2011). Sortition: Theory and Practice by Gil DeLannoi; Oliver Dowlen Review by: Alan Lockard. Public Choice , Vol. 147, No. 1/2 (April 2011), pp. 255-257
Rosenstein, N. (1995). Sorting out the lot in Republican Rome. American Journal Of Philology, 116(1), 43.
Knag, S. (1998). Let 's Toss for It. Independent Review, 3(2), 199.
Steele, D. (1995). Why Stop at Term Limits?. National Review, 47(17), 38-43.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document