In serious criminal trials, we place ultimate faith in twelve ordinary citizens selected at random. We trust them to evaluate complex forensic evidence, assess witness credibility, and determine a person’s freedom.
Yet, when it comes to passing laws, setting budgets, or tackling long-term crises, we insist on choosing leaders through high-stakes marketing campaigns.
Here is the strange part: when ordinary people sit on a jury or a citizen assembly, they don’t behave like political commentators on television. Real-world experiments—such as Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly on constitutional reform—have repeatedly shown that when citizens are given access to impartial experts, balanced evidence, and structured deliberation time, they consistently reach thoughtful, nuanced consensus on topics that elected politicians consider untouchable.
Our current political design forces representatives to prioritize their next campaign over long-term solutions. Re-election incentives penalize compromise and reward polarization.
By replacing elections with random selection—sortition—we instantly eliminate campaign finance dependency, party whips, and the constant need for political posturing. Citizens serve a single term focused purely on evaluating the facts, without the pressure of appealing to donors or party leadership.
Is our reluctance to trust ordinary citizens with lawmaking rooted in reality, or is it simply a habit we’ve inherited without questioning? Pick up a copy of the great book, The Answer, by Kizzi Nkwocha
Want more like this?
Get an occasional email when there’s something new worth reading. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
By subscribing you agree to receive occasional emails about new releases. Unsubscribe anytime by replying to any email.
