Sortition and cognitive ability

Brian Kogelmann

Politics, Philosophy & Economics2026https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x251414946article
ABDC B
Weight
0.37

What the paper says

There is a growing sense that representative democracy is in crisis, leading to renewed interest in alternative institutional designs. One popular proposal—what I call legislative sortition —says we should replace elected legislators with randomly selected citizens. While legislative sortition has drawn both numerous supporters and critics, one objection has received little attention: that ordinary citizens’ lower cognitive abilities, relative to elected officials, will diminish the quality of governance. This paper articulates and evaluates this concern, distinguishing between several versions of it. I argue that some forms of the objection are implausibly strong, but that a suitably qualified version can be defended. Although this does not provide a decisive reason to reject legislative sortition, it meaningfully shapes how we should assess its promise.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x251414946

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{brian2026,
  title        = {{Sortition and cognitive ability}},
  author       = {Brian Kogelmann},
  journal      = {Politics, Philosophy & Economics},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x251414946},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Sortition and cognitive ability

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.