Sortition would address the yawning deliberative deficit and weaken many of the pathways by which polarisation, cronyism and party influence occurs, says Nicholas Gruen.
In a recent paper, James Fishkin identifies some potential shortcomings of citizens' chambers which justify his own preference for ad hoc, and temporary citizens' panels. He makes some good points.
His central concerns are that a citizens' chamber might:
have insufficient technical expertise
be susceptible to corruption and
not maintain the high quality of deliberation achieved in the best ad hoc citizens’ juries.
These are legitimate concerns. But they have a 'theoretical' ring to me.
