Sortition - Filling public office by lottery
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- This video discusses the filling of public office by lottery, which is known as sortition. Sortition was regarded as more democratic than election by the Ancient Greeks, as it treats people equally and avoids undue influence and corruption. Sortition was used, as an element of a very complex process, for choosing the Doges of Venice for 500 years.
Sortition has been used in Australia for both juries and conscription. It is most commonly used today for citizens assemblies, using randomly chosen citizens to consider contentious policy issues or constitutional reform. The video discusses whether, and how, it might be used in the process of choosing the Governor-General or the head of state of an Australian republic.
Your proposal at the end of the video of sortition from current state governors surely has real merit. It's such an elegant process that ticks so many boxes and surely at least breaks even on the pub test.
Probably why it'll never happen 😂
The problem with any proposal is that it has to be approved in a referendum, and any referendum is highly vulnerable to a scare campaign, no matter how sensible it might be.
I would go even further and apply this sortition model to the selection of our PM and parliamentary representatives!
2025 is going to be a fantastic year with Anne educating the masses on constitutional matters.
Hopefully she has a million subscribers by the end of the year, she surely deserves them.
@@Robert-xs2mv I am very grateful for education from the "School of hard Knox"
Isn't social media something!🍒🍒🍓🍌
@ yeah. Got my education on the streets of Amsterdam.
And I spend a lot of time in libraries reading all kinds of books.
Thank you. Happy New year 🎊. Great presentation.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Anne Twomey for Governor General!
I'd fail on both personality type and grumpiness!
perhaps Prof. Anne Twomey might host and call out the numbers for the GovLotto.
Happy to oblige on the number-calling front!
First president!
I now hold serious concerns that dinner might often go cold in the Twomey-Leeming household.
But the conversation is sparkling!
Another great topic Anne. Politicians exist to advocate for stuff and retain/implement policy.
Government leaders are held to account for personell choices. A government leader should want someone as governor who will not interfere in policy. We can hold political leaders to account.
However, more names in the mix is worthwhile.
Perhaps we could have the current GG, governors and administrators of the states and territories recommend ten people each from across Australia, and the PM can, not must, select from this pool when nominating a GG. The GG, governors and administrators would send their lists to the vice-president of the Executive Council who would pass them on to the lead government minister (the PM) and publish the submitted lists once the PM nomination had been formally approved by the palace. That the GG, governors and administrators can nominate people from across Australia ensures outstanding candidates in a state/territory can be put forward even if a vindictive gov/admin would leave them off.
As this is a senior appointment the public is entitled to know who made the lists.
There is a reasonable chance that the current GG would not have made any lists, so the PM should not be bound by them.
Perhaps at State level, each Mayor could submit a name of an Australian citizen to the VP of the Exec Council, for the Premier to consider. Again, the list would be published once the new Gov/admin is chosen.
thanks - very informative.
I wonder if the muck gatherers of the anarcho-syndicalist commune in Holy Grail may have used sortition for selecting their leader.
A Head of State is someone who solidified the national identity of Australia ie Winning the best in national costume in an international pageant! Just an idea!
I actually genuinely think sortition would be a good tool to use for policymaking, along with legal experts who can do the actual drafting of laws under the public's guidance. But the advantage of sortition in governance is the same as that in juries: getting a diverse range of voices who are all personally interested in no outcome other than achieving what they believe to be the _right_ result, no worry about re-election or supporting their donors. But for a role like Head of State, which is _inherently_ held by a single person, it is impossible to have a "diverse range of voices", defeating the purpose.
I am not entirely clear why we need a head of state at all, but assuming we do I don't see why it can't be a collective appointed by sortition.
I believe that David Hurley failed in his duty by not questioning the self appointment by Scott Morrison to multiple ministries. This was glossed over at the time, but should have received much more sttention.
Another example from history that I am aware of is the election of senior officials in the Order of Knights Hospitaller, which was an complicated combination of voting for candidates for sortition and randomly selecting electors, like what you described for the election of the Doge of Venice (but not quite so elaborate). The statement that the method for choosing the Doge was devised by a Benedictine monk makes me wonder whether it was a common custom for monasteries and religious orders.
I'm not sure, but it also has some similarities with papal conclaves - locking people away from the world while they go through detailed formalities of voting.
It would be interesting to see if sortition could be inserted somehow to minimise corruption.
If I was in charge there would be a referendum to make the senate randomly selected. One year terms but 1/12 get replaced every month. Same pay as now.
The problem with that idea is shown when a micro-party candidate flukes being elected. They often end up being effective politicians (like Jackie Lambie for her first term), but it usually takes them a year or two to settle in and understand how to do the job properly. If randoms only have a year in the Senate, very few of them would be able to develop into effective independents able to represent the people before they left office.
Yes, but a longer term, probably 3 years.
In case of gems uncovered during their term, they can always stand for election in the lower chamber.
Sounds like we need a Constitutional Kleroterion!
Very clever! Although I'm not sure it has quite the same ring.
Sounds like a great idea to me ❤
You can see the kleroterion ( yes you pronounced it correctly) at The Agora Museum in Athens.
Thanks. Glad to know I got it right. Yes, I'll have to go look for it next time I'm in Athens.
Hello Professor
Thank you for explaining the use of the word (sortition).
When Prime Minister Whitlem made the famous speech on the then Parliament House "well may we say God save... because nothing will save the Governor General." Do you think he was referring to a referendum or the Monarchy?
☮️🇦🇺
That speech was made by Gough Whitlam on the steps of Parliament House after his dismissal. He was referring to Sir John Kerr, the Governor-General - not the monarchy or a referendum.
My recollection from the time was that while the Monarchy did suffer a bit of a backlash after the Dismissal, it basically came through unscathed. Likewise, the Republican movement tried to use the situation to their advantage, but again without much success. On the other hand, Sir John Kerr became one of the most reviled people in Australian history, despite his replacement of Whitlam by Fraser being endorsed by the voters at the subsequent Federal Election.
Hereditary monarchy is a lottery of sorts.
One of the monarch's private secretary worked out a theory that around every third monarch is a dud. Hereditary does not necessarily provide quality.
What about Presidents or Prime Ministers ?
@@constitutionalclarion1901 It's interesting to consider which monarchs in the past couple of centuries have been duds. I'd put my money on George IV and (perhaps more arguably) Edward VIII. But they were both survivable ... Quite a lot is required from someone if they're to count as a good monarch, as you pointed out, but the system can survive (indeed is designed to survive) a monarch whose capacities are much more limited. Hmmm ... I suppose you could also argue that Victoria in the decade or two after Albert's death counted as a dud because she almost went on strike, but even so she did do the bare minimum required for the system to function. But I'm talking from the UK point of view; I suppose Australia requires even less from a monarch than the UK does.
@@gp6314 they’re elected. Mostly 😜
Canadian Historian Jacques monet once noted "A king is a king, not because he is rich and powerful, not because he is a successful politician, not because he belongs to a particular creed or to a national group. He is King because he is born. And in choosing to leave the selection of their head of state to this most common denominator in the world -the accident of birth- Canadians implicitly proclaim their faith in human equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over social and financial interest; for the victory of the human person"
If a name is to be drawn from a hat, can that be Sir John Kerr’s top hat?
Great idea, unless a rabbit came out of it and chewed up the slips of paper...
I wonder if, a little like Venice, if you could use Sortition to chose those who do the choosing, a jury like 'committee' of voters. And that committee would chose from the shortlist of candidates after having the chance to meet and interact with them in person. And so as long as you make sure nobody makes it on to that short list who doesn't have the qualifications to do the office, the "committee of voters' becomes a test of someone who is 'good in the room', who is capable of interacting, with warmth and connection' with the diverse range of citizens.
excellent subject for discussion.
sortation for head of state ??
I'm all for sortation selecting a governing body to replace our political system.
I have complete faith in a few hundred randomly selected fellow australians running the country.
I'm fairly certain that they'd do a much better job than the cretins we have now.
We’re I PM I would seek out your counsel at every opportunity.
That would make you very wise, so maybe you wouldn't need my counsel after all!
I'd love to see a video about what power to access information the Governor General has. If they are to advise are they permitted to view whatever they wish or can their requests be denied? For example if there is a controversial anti terror law can they have ASIO hand over their reports. I'm making up an example there but I am sure there are some interesting cases in history of this.
I think a lottery would be ok you just have to select those in the lottery based on a set of criteria same with election.
Am I correct that the concept could be trialled under the current system of constitutional monarchy as a convention for selection of the Governor General? Could sortition (from amongst state Governors as you suggest) be done in practice to establish which person the Prime Minister is understood by convention, though technically not obliged by law, to be meant to advise the monarch for appointment as Governor General? If this convention were followed and were found to work well, could it become a later basis for formal legal amendment to the Commonwealth Constitution, either under a republic or otherwise? (I write this from the UK, where many of the most important constitutional principles are conventions rather than laws.)
Yes, I think it would work under the current system. As long as the Governor-General is still 'appointed by the Queen' in accordance with s 2 of the Commonwealth Constitution, then there is nothing in the Constitution that dictates the preliminary process of selection. (Prime Minister Menzies agreed with the Queen that he'd write a list of three candidates, the Queen would write a list and they'd get 'Bobbety' (Lord Salisbury) to write a list, as he 'knows everybody'. Then they'd see whose name they had in common and work from there. This was certainly not dictated by the Constitution!)
Some might argue, however, that if there were some process of election or selection that dictated the outcome of the appointment, then the appointment by the monarch would not be a free one, and that this would be contrary to an implication in the Constitution. But I doubt that this argument would be effective, as monarchs have been bound by convention regarding appointments for a long time.
@@JulesOfIslington G,day from the convict colony, hopefully no backlash🌏🤪
I'd prefer this for the PM than the current voting system.
I think it would be a great thing to allow Sortition as a candidate on all ballot papers. If it wins, the seat is filled by sortition.
the Grenadian monarchist League purposed a system where the pivy council including the leader of the Opposition pick a nominee.
I do wonder if perhaps a way to get any change done is to simply have the refenderum be something like "The austrailan parilment can now choose a new method" and thus avoid fighting but it's my understanding that's what failed the voice .perhaps a law mentioning very specifically that "This shall not change the Monarchs pregoertive or that of the prime minister " so legally it's just informal but practically it's the way
My new hypothetical dinner guests: Prof. Anne Twomey (Aust) and Jamie Raskin (US). I think all I would have to do is ask the simple question to compare the two constitutions, and then sit back for hours and be entertained by knowledgeable experts as they weave their way through the many perspectives.
Ricky Muir was elected as a senator pretty much by accident as a result of the preference system. And he turned out to be an excellent senator - who, naturally, was then taken down by the libs and labs at the next election, because they couldnt stomach the fact that an ordinary bloke had shown everyone that an ordinary bloke could do an excellent job in federal parliament without being beholden to the party machine warriors.
Head of state? If sortition was an option then, subject to a few caveats, including some sort of ethics monitoring, I would support it for electing our representatives, senators, and everyone else - 100%. The major parties have imposed their own - private - selection criteria and that selection criteria is adverse to the interests of ordinary australians. Id definitely support candidates being selected by lottery. They would be much better than the current lot, thats for sure.
I personally would love to have 12 Senators selected at random from the electoral roll. 6 per half senate election with two total per state.
Excellent video! Another good one to watch after this is Brett Hennig's TED Talk about sortition. It's titled something like "What if we replaced politicians with randomly selected people?"
While I think sortition is a pretty mediocre idea, as a thought experiment it definitely addresses a lot of the biggest issues of democratic governments and shines a light on some of the attributes an improved system might have - E.g. The built-in resistance to corruption and the idea of distributed nationwide opinions
Elect half the Senate by sortition - the result will be no worse (and probably much better) than the fringe-dwellers who win the last spot per state, almost at random anyway.
Why didn’t the GG act regarding ScoMo’s ministries??? Interesting.
From recollection (and I don't have the advice in front of me, so I won't have the words completely right), the Governor-General was advised that this was a necessary contingency during the COVID-19 pandemic so that there was another senior minister who could exercise critical powers if the portfolio minister was unable to do so due to illness. I understand that he was also unaware that it had been kept secret from other Ministers. He probably just thought it was business as usual. It's hard to know that something has been kept secret, unless someone tells you that it has been.
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks. I used to think the constitution wasn't prescriptive enough (e.g. there's no mention of the Prime Minister in it) and too much was left to convention. PM Morrison's actions seem to prove this point, but I think he really represents the bad apple spoiling it for everyone. Britain doesn't have a constitution and it reached its historical zenith when everyone knew their place during Victoria's reign. Our constitution guides us - or should. I wonder why the PM appointing himself to those ministries rather than appointing assistant ministers didn't seem strange enough to former G-G David Hurley to ask some questions? Perhaps it's too much behind closed doors? I really think there is room for improving the situation.
I could envisage the election of the Doge as a riotously drunken affair... but it was probably quite dry and boring
Your comment on limited circle [14:50] struck a chord with the previous PM initials of JH.
Sortition? I was not being facetious.
For some time, I've supported sortition as a method to select senators for Federal Parliament.
Annual appointments of two new senators (per state) announced on Australia Day so they can prepare to take Office in July of that year. Consequently, the allocation of 12 senators is refreshed every six years. A slightly different routine for the territories, but along the same principle.
The intent is to remove (or at least reduce) party political influence within the Upper House so that bills are reviewed on merit rather than the result of political deals.
I suspect the current members of Parliament would strongly oppose any moves towards sortition, so how would such an approach be implemented?
I was probably one of those commenters, I believe a lottery is the best choice for an Australian head of state.
Given the poor quality of candidates that will be nominated by politicians random selection is more likely to provide a better head of state.
Someone elected by lottery could be subjected to impeachment by 60% popular vote with any such impeachment also coming with a death sentence if any lottery winner got too big for their boots.
Citizen Juries 🙇♂
I think the sortition as identified in Venice is the main method used by our political parties to choose their candidates for parliament. I knew Australia was not a democracy but thought it was a two party autocracy fueled by our oligarchs. Now I know why candidates that are so unsuitable for flushing the toilet end up as our representatives.
Candidates end up as our representatives because people vote for them. We would be much better off if voters actually put in some effort to find out about candidates, rather than voting for them blindly. I certainly do, and it does take quite a deal of time and effort.
@@constitutionalclarion1901With all due respect, candidates end up as our representatives because their party preselects them. We can only choose from the candidates on the ballot, and if the major parties who are capable of winning government offer up dreck and garbage, then we’ll elect parliaments full of dreck and garbage regardless of how well we research their bona fides.
Which seems to be the normal outcome. How else do you explain (gestures expansively) all this?
It would be cool to use sortition in a future Australian republic to possibly decide the president from the parliament or public service
Please do not let us use the title "President" for a future head if state. "Governor General" is a title we have grown to trust. An Australian head of state called whatever does not have to kow-tow to a foreign potentate.
@NSWLancer practically all countries with an elected head of state use president. Why shouldn't we. I think that the term president inspires more confidence than governor general
@@AlienAbyss2 Well, Hitler was president of Germany, Assad of Syria, Putin of Russia, Amin of Uganda and Trump the US. We have had GG's since 1901; Kerr was a bit of a worry, otherwise good service.
@NSWLancer Sorry I don't understand what your trying to say. Do you mean that in a Republic you would want our president to retain the term 'Governor-General' or do you just not want a republic all together
@@AlienAbyss2A Governor General with no reporting line, in particular to a outlander. If that is a republic or a commonwealth no monarch to be seen, so be it.
The polling shows that Australians want direct election but not open nominations. Let’s have candidates nominated by a Council of One Hundred, who would use something like the end stage of the Venetian procedure to nominate a set number of presidential candidates. The council would look like the Irish constitutional convention-one-third MPs and 2/3 citizens chosen by lot.
I think that polling asks what method is preferred IF a President had to be chosen. So far, the majority still prefer NOT to choose, because they prefer constitutional monarchy.
@ That is incorrect. The state nomination model preferred by the ARM opens by citing polling that supports direct election, but not open nomination. Admittedly, that model was put together before the queen died and the ARM was assuming (with its unerring inability to follow popular opinion) that Charles III would be deeply unpopular.
If some office is so useless and nonrequiring so any random person fits to it - this office should be abolished.
Juries? We currently randomly select people to serve on juries, but people still seem to think that juries perform an important function.
@constitutionalclarion1901 and they work extremely bad, especially in complex cases, long sittings, special rare or in opposite obvious but politically significant processes (Floyd and Trump in US as brightest examples). I do not like professional lawyers, but 5 min talk to average citizen clarifies everything.
Another very thought-provoking and educational video. I couldn't find reference to W C Wentworth's idea - could you clarify it? The PM & Opposition Leader nominate a panel (of 4 or 5 people) all acceptable to both of them with the final selection made by lot. Was the panel itself the group of candidates or was the panel to compile a list of candidates?
I think the current system of the PM choosing the GG is very easy to improve on.
If Wentworth's method was used at the state level to choose Governors (assuming the panel compiles a list of local people), then your suggestion for either selecting or electing one of them (those willing) to be GG (without undue campaigning, etc.) would enable a Federal system that could raise some ordinary people to the highest office.
Thank you again for a fascinating video. No offense, but I do wish you'd stop using the expression "if Australia becomes a republic". In your video 'Why is Australia a "Commonwealth"' you say "It was preferred to have a name that would be appropriate for such a [independent] nation". Our founding fathers foresaw our independence. We are a republic, we just call it by a different name and I see no reason to change that.
Wentworth's idea was for a panel being the group of agreed candidates, and then one would be chosen by lot.
@ Thank you. I think of a panel as a 'panel of judges', hence the confusion.
Is this not also how the Archons during the Democracy of Athens were chosen? Slowly as the power devolved from the aristocracy and the political voting blocks of the Athenian men further evolved into demographic blocks. The system of lottery on which archons were selected and who the lead archon was.
Sortition would never work in Australia, around 50% of the citizens have foreign allegiances.
Sortition can be used if anyone there Vanden seat with NO Standing that mind be a way. or in 3 way tide
Do you want to take another punt at this comment, it appears you may have had a medical episode during your first attempt
@@MenaceGallagher Not everyone is as well educated as you. Just because someone doesn't write with perfect syntax and grammar does not mean their thoughts are invalid. But if you do think people whose writing is less than perfect should be disregarded, you would be excluding yourself because you appear to be unaware of how to use the full stop.
11:00 I'm sure the qualities you list are things YOU think are important.
Yes, this is my assessment, from having observed how vice-regal offices function in practice, having met many vice-regal officers and having read many archival documents from vice-regal officers over the last century or so. You may, of course, have a different view.
The Swiss Cabinet is appointed by the Parliament across the largest parties on a 2•2•2•1 basis.
And they are a corporate head of state, they are collectively the head of state. Although they functionally act as single president year by year. Perhaps something for @constitutionalclarion1901 to explore?
Whoever legitimized the identity of Australia internationally wins and when Australia won the BESt in National Costume in MISS INTERNATIONAL QUEEN PAGEANT it means someone already found our identity as a nation thus this person is indeed already The rightful Head of State. ❤⚜️
I am interested in which Country better off being Constitutional Monarchy for me I think Germany and Germany Society should be Constitutional Monarchy with Same Powers as UK Monarchy on Society Level some Country Should be Constitutional Monarchy or Absolute Monarchy and Dictatorship if the Country too unstable Politically. For Germany got long history of Absolute Monarchy and Constitutional Monarchy Germany identity is better suited for Democratic Constitutional Monarchy with Head of State and Basic Law was a Provisional Constitution until Unification of Germany However Politicians decided to Make Basic Law Permanent Constitution for Germany However I feel Germany Needed a New Constitution and with Head of State is a Monarch most likely House of Hohenzollern is my question some Country better off being Constitutional Monarchy?????