Sortition versus party governments

Abstract

This thesis explores selection mechanisms in democratic systems, focusing on sortition as an alternative to traditional electoral methods. Conducted as part of a Double Degree program between LUMSA University and the Australian National University (ANU), the research comprises three independent papers currently under peer review. Chapter 1 provides a historical analysis of sortition, tracing its use from ancient Greece to modern democratic experiments. It examines the theoretical foundations of random selection in governance, its historical decline, and its potential to enhance contemporary democracy by fostering transparency and egalitarianism. Chapter 2 introduces a theoretical framework for applying sortition within political parties. Co-authored with Prof. Keith Dowding and Dr. William Bosworth, this paper proposes a novel candidate selection mechanism where party representatives are partially chosen by lot before facing elections. This method mitigates elite manipulation while preserving party stability and electoral competition. The study argues that integrating sortition within party structures can enhance internal democracy without undermining electoral legitimacy. Chapter 3, co-authored with Prof. Matteo Rizzolli, Prof. Luca Corazzini, and Dr. Davide Marchegiani, presents an empirical study using behavioral experiments to compare the effects of three selection mechanisms—elections, meritocracy, and sortition—on policymakers’ decision-making. Findings indicate that election-based systems lead to more equitable resource distribution due to accountability-driven incentives. While sortition alone appears less effective in fostering distributive fairness, its integration within party selection processes, as proposed in Chapter 2, offers a promising middle ground between democratic legitimacy and reduced elite dominance. Show more