Praise for The Democracy Manifesto

“Sortition-the lottery-was invented by the ancient Greeks as a peculiarly democratic mode of self-governance. Sortitive Representative Democracy (SRD) is the brilliantly inventive authors attempt to remedy some of the failings of our modern representative democracies, and it’s advocated for in a classically ancient Greek way: by use of the dialog format. Add to that fully up-to-date documentation and a classic openness to logical, rational argument, and the present work offers one of the best available routes for genuine progress in a murky but essential field of human endeavor, a truly democratic politics.”

Paul Cartledge, University of Cambridge

“The play is the thing wherein this book will catch the conscience of the king, along with his needlessly loyal subjects. In The Democracy Manifesto, Wayne Waxman and Alison McCulloch stage a play inspired by Greek theater to advance an Ancient Athenian idea.

They propose replacing elections with ‘sortitive representative democracy, sometimes called a ‘civic lottery,’ to fill legislative offices. They then take this method farther than most advocates to envision a sortition society, with everything from foreign policy to workplace disputes governed by random samples of the public. Given the recent successes of sortition across the globe, the authors drama could move from fiction to fact sooner than skeptics might expect.”

John Gastil, co-author of Legislature by Lot: Transformative Designs for Deliberative Governance

“The Democracy Manifesto is an entertaining, engaging introduction to an idea worth taking very seriously: the use of random selection, rather than elections, to choose our political representatives.”

Alexander Guerrero, Rutgers University-New Brunswick

Wayne Waxman: Wayne Waxman is the author of Kant’s Model of the Mind (Oxford University Press, 1991), Hume’s Theory of Consciousness (Cambridge University Press, 1994), Kant and the Empiricists: Understanding Understanding (Oxford University Press, 2005), Kant’s Anatomy of the Intelligent Mind (Oxford University Press, 2014), and A Guide to Kant’s Psychologism (Routledge, 2019), as well as numerous articles and chapters on the history of modern philosophy. He received his PhD in philosophy in 1987 from the University of California Santa Barbara, was an Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung fellow in Berlin and Oxford, and has taught philosophy at the New School for Social Research, University of Colorado Boulder, Princeton, Yale, University of Illinois Chicago, University of Auckland, and the University of Ireland at Maynooth. He is retired and living in New Zealand.

Alison McCulloch: worked as a journalist for more than 20 years, in New Zealand, France and the United States where she shared a Pulitzer Prize won by The Denver Post news staff in 2000, was a staff editor at The New York Times, and a contributor to The New York Times Book Review. She has a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Colorado Boulder, and is the author of Fighting to Choose: The Abortion Rights Struggle in New Zealand (Victoria University Press, 2013).

Errata:


1. p. 6 lines 4-9 should read: “Cato is conservative in favoring government that puts tradition first, Uhuru liberal for wanting government to take a leading role in replacing traditional ways and values with more modern ones, Atlas libertarian in preferring to see government minimized to the greatest extent possible, and Rangi leftist in favoring government that makes working people and the poor its priority in all things.”
2. p. 71 line 1 should read: “rich and powerful outside government”
3. p. 72 line 8 should read: “SRD imbuing government”
4. p. 72 line line 22 should read: “tends to be the case with government advising today”
5. p. 95 line 35 should read: “certain SRD information protocols extended beyond government,”
6. p. 104, 4th line from bottom should read: “money would end up going to government, not”
7. p. 139 line 12 should read: “The process leading to that point starts with ideas people like me.”
8. p. 144 line 5 should read: prisoners and probationers.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning.


Leave a reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

2 Comments

  1. Unknown's avatar Anonymous says:

    Just came across your “dialogue” The Democracy Manifesto and am starting to read this with enormous interest. Before I stumbled upon your work, I have long advocated Ranked Choice Voting as a method to bring greater equity to our elective process. Now I’m having second thoughts, unless that can be incorporated somehow in SRD. What are your thoughts on this?

    Like

    1. WayneWax's avatar WayneWax says:

      Thank you for your question. Our basic position is that that the fundamental problem lies not with the equity of the voting system but with election itself. 

      The various voting reforms that have been suggested/implemented in the effort to correct the inequities of winner take all systems inevitably complicate the processes of electioneering, voting itself, and vote counting and certification. Many voters will in consequence be left confused, which (1) makes it easier for well-resourced, less scrupulous political organisations to manipulate their choice, (2) increases the likelihood that voters will mismark (vote contrary to their intention) or inadvertently spoil their ballots, (3) reduces the incentive to vote at all, and (4) can’t help but make counting and certification more corruptible. Moreover, however well-intended the reform, reforms can’t shift the balance of power in favor of the people enough to redeem elections since the powers that be, being the best resourced and organized, are also the best able to adapt to reformed voting systems so as to preserve their dominance and promote their interests (witness the ranked voting system of the Australian Senate or MMP here in New Zealand). 

      This is the basic problem with all elections, regardless of the system: since voters won’t tick the box for people unknown to them, and since becoming known requires the kind of money, resources, and connections ordinary people can’t hope to match, elections are as sure a method as there is to ensure that ordinary people have no chance of getting anywhere near the real levers of political power. Elections, by their very nature, are geared to give power to society’s elites and deprive non-elites of power, which is the very antithesis of what ‘democracy’ means. That’s why the ancient Athenians, having learned this through long, hard experience, decided to choose the people in charge of day to day governance not by election but by lot, which, if conducted fairly, actually does hand real power to ordinary people. Our book is simply an attempt to adapt the principles on which ancient democracies were based to contemporary conditions.

      Like

Leave a reply to Anonymous Cancel reply