IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/polsoc/v46y2018i3p435-451.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Hybrid Bicameralism Is Not Right for Sortition

Author

Listed:
  • Terrill Bouricius

Abstract

Structural problems are examined with pairing two chambers, one selected by election and the other by sortition, into a traditional bicameral system. It is argued that an all-purpose legislative chamber modeled on existing elected chambers is a mismatch for sortition and that purported benefits of maintaining partisan elections alongside sortition are illusory. Alleged benefits of a hybrid bicameral system are shown to be outweighed by a variety of harmful effects. Furthermore, even if those harms are not substantiated, the continued existence of an elected chamber will likely result in the delimitation of the sortition chamber. Combining many different sorts of minipublics with different characteristics and functions is preferable, and a possible multibody sortition legislative system is presented. Finally, an alternative way forward for sortition is proposed by peeling away individual topic areas from elected bodies and transferring them to sortition bodies.

Suggested Citation

  • Terrill Bouricius, 2018. "Why Hybrid Bicameralism Is Not Right for Sortition," Politics & Society, , vol. 46(3), pages 435-451, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:polsoc:v:46:y:2018:i:3:p:435-451
    DOI: 10.1177/0032329218789893
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032329218789893
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0032329218789893?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:polsoc:v:46:y:2018:i:3:p:435-451. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.