The luck of the draw

It is half past nine in the morning in Tehran. Now imagine: you are on your way to parliament to represent the interests of all citizens. But nobody voted for you; the lot fell on you. The same lot we know from housing and cars. Democracy without elections?! What seems unimaginable at first is a serious debate among researchers: if political decisions were made by people chosen by lot, everyone would have an equal chance of being heard. Would that increase our trust in politics? What do we gain and what do we lose?

Descriptive representation is no stranger to Iran. The first Majles of 1285 was elected on the basis of six estates: princes and Qajars, clergy, notables, merchants, landowners and guilds. Each estate sent its own representatives so that the Majles would resemble the society they knew. The lot does the same with another tool.

Citizens are chosen by lot; from the civil registry, say. More are invited than there are seats.

All those invited are asked for more information: occupation, age, education, province, and the like.

In a second draw an algorithm weighs these features and composes the assembly so that it mirrors the population's diversity as far as possible.

If a group is small, its weight is raised so the assembly resembles society.

This session grew out of Reza's story in «How are we all doing?»: an assembly chosen by lot that sits round one table every Thursday to write the water table. The people round the table are written, not generated by a machine; Leila, Haj Qasem, Bahram and the engineer are this site's, Reza, Maryam and Sara come from the four stories. What they say depends on what you choose, and has no more than twenty-odd branches.

There is no number in this session that is not on the site's fact sheet: the engineer gives the order of the shares in words and names the three Koohrang tunnels, that is all. The scroll of Sheikh Bahai is real and has set the division of the Zayandeh-rud for four hundred years; its shares are only alluded to here. Your chair and your vote are recorded without a name, and at the end of the session you see the others' share. Reza's last question is this experience's question: lot or vote?

The budget debate, a new insurance law, the division of water: political issues and decisions are complex. Experienced politicians know the fine print of politics. They have expertise in various subjects and pass it on through their current and their list. This lets them find creative solutions and resolve conflicts. In conversation with voters, other currents and in political debate, they gain new views.

If the lot decided, members would bring far more varied lived experience to political debate; provided people as diverse as possible could be drawn into taking part. Is a diverse parliament valuable «in itself», and does it treat the different groups of society more fairly? Minorities might be heard and accepted better. And it might encourage people to take more part in politics.

Parties and currents gather opinions from society, set varied interests side by side, build agreement, write new proposals and bring them to parliament through their factions. Some researchers believe that without elections no party would remain; at least not in the form we know today. Who takes on its work?

There are more questions: what does lottery democracy do with protests and long-term projects? Do the best speakers take over the debates? Do expert advisers in effect steer the parliament?

Write the name and the code! The ballot gives citizens the freedom to decide who goes to parliament. Before that comes a contest for political power: which candidate argues more convincingly in the campaign, represents me and my interests and my position better, or is simply more likeable? Elections are held to be the best way of gathering different voices. Every vote counts equally and has a share in the make-up of parliament. Losers can stand again next time.

Once and no more: a member chosen by lot is not re-elected, so bears less responsibility for the consequences of what they do. But that is not necessarily a flaw: they need make nobody a tactical electoral promise or follow a current's line. Long-term relationships with lobbies and rent-seekers? Probably those do not last either. So more room opens for debate over the better argument.