Let's toss for it: a surprising curb on political greed.

• Author: Knag, Sigmund

But anyone who deliberately tries to get himself elected to a public office [in Utopia] is permanently disqualified from holding one.

Thomas More, Utopia

Nowadays elections are almost universally regarded as the keystone of political affairs. Besides paying taxes and perhaps serving in the military, average citizens participate in political life mainly by voting. Although people disagree about election procedures and often feel disgust with election outcomes, hardly anyone today doubts that elections provide the only way to establish, legitimize, and control a government. Historically, however, general elections have been the exception rather than the rule for selecting and guiding governments. Alternatives include various autocratic or despotic systems and processes and, in more democratic systems, methods that supplement or substitute for elections. Among the latter is lot-drawing, also known as sortition (from the Latin root sort, meaning "lot"). This procedure has intriguing characteristics and effects as well as potential for present-day utility. In this article I discuss its history and nature and consider some possible applications in the American political system.

Instances of Lot-Drawing

In the fifth century B.C., the Athenians filled their civic offices in two ways, either by the random operation of the lot (kleros) or by election. Most officeholders were selected by lot. Aristotle, among others, viewed lot-drawing as the more democratic procedure and election as the more aristocratic (Stockton 1991). Scholars are not sure about the exact procedure used: Was the selection made from all those eligible or, at least in some instances, from those eligible and willing to serve? Lacking enough willing citizens, was compulsion used? Did the Athenians sometimes select from a short list of citizens eligible, willing, and qualified to serve? Although the evidence is inconclusive, it seems likely that "sortition from among volunteers" was the rule, at least in a number of cases (Stockton 1991, 115-16). Holders of the most important offices, the archonships, were selected from a short list, direct election having been abolished in 487-86 B.C. and replaced by sortition from (probably one hundred) preselected candidates of the two highest classes of citizens. After about 460 B.C., all four classes of citizens were eligible for archonship. Later the appointment process became one of straightforward double sortition--two rounds of lot-drawing (Stockton 1991,1089). Before taking office, the selected candidate underwent a scrutiny (dokimasia) in which citizens could object to his character or record (Stockton 1991, 110-11). Athens had many civic offices, most with only modest power and many requiring only part-time service. Except for membership in the Great Council (the boule), offices typically could be held only once in a citizen's lifetime. This system fostered participation, rotation, and amateurism: Many citizens participated in wielding power; rotation in office prevailed; and the outlook of the ordinary citizen pervaded the civil service and the judiciary. Including the boule, "about one thousand posts had to be filled year in and year out from among citizens aged at least thirty" in a citizenry of "between thirty or forty thousand or so above the age of eighteen." In addition, some six thousand served as dicasts (jurors) in the courts (Stockton 1991, 112).

In the heyday of their republic, the Venetians selected their lifetime leader, the Doge, by a complex system involving lot-drawing. The system had developed through the Middle Ages, becoming ever more complex to avoid manipulation, before being codified in 1268. The procedure consisted of a series of ten ballots that alternated between sortition and election. All participants had to belong to the Great Council, which included several hundred members of the most prominent families. The steps were as follows (Dahl 1994, 14-16):

1. The ballottino, a boy chosen at random, draws thirty names by plucking balls out of an urn, thus setting the process in motion with a blind draw.

2. Those thirty are reduced to nine by a blind draw.

3. Those nine put forward forty names, each of which needs at least seven of the nine possible votes.

4. Those forty are reduced to twelve by a blind draw.

5. Those twelve put forward twenty-five names.

6. Those twenty-five are reduced to nine by a blind draw.

7. Those nine choose forty-five new names, each of which needs at least seven of the nine possible votes.

8. Those forty-five are reduced to eleven by a blind draw.

9. Those eleven choose forty-one, who must not have been included in any of the reduced groups that named candidates in earlier steps.

10. Those forty-one then choose the Doge.

The Venetian system seems devised to make it impossible for any individual, family, or coterie to plant candidates or exercise undue influence. However convoluted the procedure, it supported a republican government that lasted a thousand years, until 1797.

Selection of a new Dalai Lama in Tibet involves a baroque procedure. By traditional esoteric divination, a committee of priests identifies a boy destined by the gods to become the lifetime head of government and the high priest of the country's major Buddhist sect. The boy is treated as a prince and educated for his office, which he eventually assumes. This procedure differs from lot-drawing because it gives considerable influence to the priests. But it includes an element of chance because no one can predict what sort of man the boy will become. It also precludes self-promotion and power-seeking by candidates: no candidates, no campaigning.

Historically many positions of leadership have been filled by hereditary succession. This involves randomness because heredity itself is an arbitrary yet objective criteflon, and no one can know what sort of person the new monarch or prince will be. In this case the randomness does not entail participation, rotation, or amateurism. The king represents a dynastic interest and a political class. Still, an old-fashioned monarch is not beholden to any particular interest, which allows him to take a broad and long view if he cares to do so. Needless to say, the monarchical principle of legitimacy has long since fallen out of favor among opinion leaders.

In countries with a jury system, the jury is formed by lot-drawing. Names typically come from local census or voting rolls and are subject to elimination on grounds of insanity, criminal record, or other bona fide reasons. Counsels may also have the right to...