FRAW Gallery: ‘Agitate, Educate, Organize!’

BOKK Journals:
‘Journal of Sortition’

Since ancient times, sortition (random selection by lot) has been used both to distribute political office and as a general prophylactic against factionalism and corruption in societies as diverse as classical-era Athens and the Most Serene Republic of Venice. More recently, developments in public opinion polling using random sampling have led to the proliferation of citizens’ assemblies selected by lot. The Journal of Sortition is dedicated to the study of random selection from a wide variety of perspectives.

This page collects all citations from this journal, providing an ‘open’ link to access that research paper where possible. The citation for each paper also lists the content of the FRAW site which references that work, with links directly to the paragraph citing the paper. This listing uses the same format as the FRAW Subject Index – and a complete table of the abbreviations used in the listing can be found on the main index page. Note, paywalled links are shown in red, and ‘open’ links are shown in blue.

Papers cited (reverse chronological order)

#spada_2025

Paolo Spada & Tiago C. Peixoto, Journal of Sortition, vol.1 no.1 pp.137-159, 2025.

The Limits of Representativeness in Citizens’ Assemblies – A Critical Analysis of Democratic Minipublics

This article critically examines the widespread claim that minipublics, such as citizens assemblies, typically represent the broader population in democratic decision-making. Through systematic analysis, we identify four fundamental challenges to representativeness: small sample sizes, group effects that complicate output legitimacy, sampling biases from population lists, and low acceptance rates. We evaluate three common strategies used to justify small sample minipublics — stratification, supermajority voting, and second-best arguments — and demonstrate why these approaches fail to resolve the underlying representativeness problems. Rather than abandoning minipublics entirely, we propose three alternative ways forward: (1) scaling up and integrating multiple independent minipublics, (2) targeting specific inclusion failures rather than pursuing broad representation, and (3) leveraging non-domination claims instead of representativeness. While the first approach faces significant technical and cost challenges, the latter two offer more practical paths forward, particularly in addressing concrete democratic deficits in existing institutions. We conclude that minipublics remain valuable democratic innovations, but their legitimacy should be grounded in their ability to address specific inclusion failures and prevent domination by organized minorities rather than claims of broad population representation.

Referenced in: frn-‘frak’/¶11.