[loicd]

I am not OP, but it seems to me that there is an obvious problem with it. If you select a truly random set of citizens to rule a country, there are no guarantees that you will get a representative sample of the citizenry. That's simply not how statistics work. Without any further selection, you will eventually (and sooner than you would expect) put terrible or incompetent people in power. Now, if the randomly selected citizens must go through a selection process or be moderated by experts, then the actual power is in the selection process and moderation, and there is nothing democratic about it.

For what it is worth, I am French, and my country recently made a sortition experiment[1] that I found less than convincing. This was in response to the yellow vest movement. I did not feel represented by that 'citizens convention'. I do not know what part of their propositions come from them, and what part come from the experts advising them. Some of their propositions (like putting a more stringent speed limit on highways) were not implemented because, ironically, they were impopular. The whole thing felt like a failed experiment to me.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Convention_for_Climat...

[lapcat]

> If you select a truly random set of citizens to rule a country, there are no guarantees that you will get a representative sample of the citizenry.

Not sure that's the goal as such. The goal is to have a selection system that's incorruptible.

> Without any further selection, you will eventually (and sooner than you would expect) put terrible or incompetent people in power.

Well, we have that already. I like the odds of random selection a lot better. With the current system, we're practically guaranteed of getting terrible or incompetent people in power.

> I am French, and my country recently made a sortition experiment[1]

150 people seems pretty small. The US House of Representatives has over 500 members.