@inbook{41,
  keywords = {Sortition},
  author = {Dimitri Courant},
  title = {Sortition and Democratic Principles. A Comparative Analysis},
  abstract = {<p>After centuries of absence, sortition is making its return through academic research, practical experiments, and activists{\textquoteright} calls for linking participation and deliberation. These invocations of sortition, however, offer divergent accounts of the concept and different justifications. Gastil and Wright{\textquoteright}s proposal for a {\textquotedblleft}sortition chamber{\textquotedblright} provides one such example, but sortition can be conceptualized more broadly. When properly analyzed in this larger sense, one can better appreciate how sortition satisfies democratic principles{\textemdash}often in novel ways that go beyond those enumerated in the lead chapter of this volume. To better understand the implications of sortition, I begin by contrasting it with the other modes of selection democracies use to place people in positions of power, including not only elections but also nomination and certifi cation. I then distinguish varieties of sortition that differ by their mandate, the population from which a random sample is drawn, and the degree to which service is voluntary or compulsory. Depending on the design considerations such as these, sortition can provide a novel means of realizing the democratic aspirations of equality, impartiality, representativeness, and legitimacy.\&nbsp;</p>
},
  year = {2019},
  journal = {Legislature by Lot},
  pages = {229-248},
  publisher = {Verso},
  address = {New York},
}