Electoral systems have an adverse selection problem, favoring narcissistic, Machiavellian, and psychopathic individuals who seek power. A lottery system, by contrast, selects a more representative and less pathologically power-hungry group of leaders, avoiding those who excel at manipulative charm to get elected.
Citizen assemblies don't require pre-existing expertise from participants. The inclusion of diverse individuals, like the homeless or elderly, changes the conversation's nature, fosters empathy, and provides a therapeutic function for the political body. This emotional and social bonding is considered at least as important as technical problem-solving.
When leaders are chosen by lottery instead of election, they are less likely to feel they are "the chosen one." This fosters a sense of duty, humility, and servant leadership because they recognize their position is due to chance, not special merit. This structure serves as a protective mechanism against the selfishness and hubris often seen in politics.
Effective citizen assemblies require experts, but not in their traditional, top-down authoritative role. Experts must learn to be "on tap, not on top"—simplifying their language and responding to citizens' needs rather than dictating solutions. This creates a difficult but necessary learning curve, shifting the expert's role from a leader to a service provider.
Expecting politicians to vote themselves out of a job is unrealistic. The path to reform is a bottom-up approach, using numerous local citizen assemblies to prove their value. When politicians realize these assemblies can solve problems and reconcile people with the system, they will adopt them to secure their own legitimacy and hold onto power.
While seemingly a threat to established power, Ireland's use of citizen assemblies actually reconciled the public with the political system. By integrating lot-based democracy for contentious issues like same-sex marriage, politicians gained legitimacy, making it an ironic case where the reform strengthened the very system it was meant to supplement or replace.
Demanding empirical proof of a group's competence before granting them political power is a historical tactic used to disenfranchise people. Citing W.E.B. Du Bois, political scientist Hélène Landemore argues that true democracy requires a leap of faith: you must trust people with power first, and they will rise to the occasion and educate themselves.