Clever exploitation of real structural vulnerabilities (gerrymandering, low primary turnout, vote-splitting in FPTP)
Creates a concrete national-scale path rather than waiting decades
The math is compelling: in Idaho's example, 108k Democratic primary voters could swing Republican primaries if mobilized
Transparency about the approach could generate media attention and public discussion
Article V convention is an unexplored constitutional mechanism
Critical Weaknesses:
Coordination nightmare: Recruiting losing-party voters to switch parties and vote for sortition candidates requires unprecedented coordination across dozens of states simultaneously. You'd need 34 state legislatures (2/3) and then ratification by 38 (3/4).
The "wonky" problem you identified is fatal: Sortition IS exactly the kind of wonky, abstract reform that lacks emotional resonance. Gay marriage had love. Marijuana had freedom and medical relief. What's the bumper sticker for "representative random sampling for constitutional legitimacy"?
Party machinery will crush this: The moment sortition candidates start winning primaries, both parties will mobilize their institutional resources. They'll change primary rules, restrict crossover voting, or simply outspend insurgents 100:1.
No proof of concept: You're asking millions of voters to support a completely untested system for the highest-stakes governance. This is like asking people to bet their life savings on a startup with no MVP.
Article V uncertainty is a bug, not a feature: The lack of precedent means established powers can manipulate the convention rules. Without sortition already having legitimacy, you won't control the process.
Your Incremental Strategy:
Strengths:
It works: You've already proven this model with approval voting in Fargo and St. Louis. Proof-of-concept → scaling is a tested path.
Citizens' Initiative Review is genius: It's non-binding, so less threatening. The signature-reduction trade-off is brilliant framing—same cost, better quality. Studies showing 5-10% opinion movement in close elections makes it immediately valuable.
Builds legitimacy organically: When Portland or Georgia counties show sortition working, it becomes concrete rather than theoretical. Media can point to actual results.
Exploits existing infrastructure: CIR already exists in Oregon law; Georgia already has grand jury sortition traditions. You're not asking for revolution, just expansion of accepted practices.
Creates constituencies: Local success creates stakeholders who'll advocate for scaling up. This is how marijuana legalization actually worked—state by state, with visible results.
Weaknesses:
"Glacial" is an understatement: This could take 50+ years to reach federal level.
Capture risk: As sortition bodies gain real power, they become targets for the same institutional capture affecting current systems.
Scaling problems: Municipal → state → federal isn't guaranteed. Alcohol prohibition repealed via Article V; marijuana is still federally illegal despite state victories.
Verdict
Troesoyer's strategy has approximately 0.1% chance of success. It's not impossible, but it requires:
Unprecedented voter coordination across 34+ states
Institutional parties not adapting their defenses
Winning the messaging war on an inherently wonky reform
Controlling an Article V convention with no established power base
Your strategy has perhaps 15-20% chance of reaching federal implementation within 50 years, much higher for achieving meaningful sortition at state/local levels within 20 years.
The counterintuitive insight: The "glacial" approach is actually faster in expected value terms. A 15% chance of success in 50 years beats a 0.1% chance in 10 years.
Your Portland CIR proposal is particularly brilliant because:
The signature-reduction frame neutralizes the "lowering standards" objection
Non-binding means low risk for officials to support
5-10% opinion swing is immediately valuable to measure
Creates a template for other cities
Builds on existing (if unfunded) state law
One suggested modification: Could you create a "CIR for CIR" — use a citizens' assembly to decide whether to implement CIR? This meta-level application might generate media interest while demonstrating the concept's legitimacy in a low-stakes way.
The Georgia election-by-jury work is fascinating too. The fact that grand jury sortition already exists there gives you cultural legitimacy that Troesoyer's strategy completely lacks.
Your instinct is correct: movements need emotional resonance or visible proof-of-concept. Sortition has neither yet. Build the proof.
Thank you for the insightful analysis Clay. I perhaps need to make this more clear in the post, but this Article V approach does not rule out working on the more practical glacial approach at the same time. Things like the Citizens' Initiative Review process and Election By Jury and even state-level constitutional reform MAY need to come first. My argument is only that, ultimately, if we want political legitimacy based on democratic accuracy, we will need to apply representative random sampling to constitutions. This path is the shortest path I can see to that goal, once we are ready for it.
However, I wouldn't rule out starting on this work now as a way to make sortition newsworthy and get the idea in front of a LOT more people ASAP.
this is very well written and much more lucid than most writing. I read on this topic or really any topic. it reminds me a lot of the tone, I was trying to set in my election by jury manifesto.
but where I differ with you is in strategy having spent 20 years, since the summer of 2006, working on electoral reform including co-founding the center for elections science. The United States is incredibly rare and lucky in having such a broad accessible ballot initiative process. we have to utilize this. but going straight for the jugular is a fool's errand. this kind of stuff is just way too wonky to get enough passion around it and create a movement the way you get with things like gay marriage or marijuana decriminalization. unfortunately, the model you have to follow is to build out proof of concept in local municipalities and then try to scale it up. it's glacial. there's no way around that.
I think it's kind of funny and ironic that you want to exploit vote splitting given that I have spent most of my electoral career trying to fix vote splitting with approval voting. it can't hurt to try it, but plenty of people have tried and failed before to do similar things. My current strategy is to try to get elected officials to expand on existing related systems, particularly in Georgia and Oregon. I'm meeting with a city council member soon to discuss having a Portland citizens initiative review. there's already one on the books at the state level but it just hasn't been funded. My proposal is that they fund it by allowing signature gatherers to collect about $200k fewer signatures, which in Portland would mean going from 9% to 5%. it's still the same total cost so arguably the same impediment to frivolous ballot initiatives. only much better quality because then that money goes into a deliberative process which helps voters make a more informed decision. That's not legally binding. but studies show it can move public opinion 5 to 10% which is going to be definitive in like 80% of cases, where the default would be a pretty close election.
The election by jury stuff in Georgia is even more interesting in many ways.
Thanks Clay! That compliment about the writing means a lot coming from you. I really like election by jury's website. We agree that things like EBJ and sortition-based ballot initiatives will almost certainly need to come before something like a sortition-based Article V convention.
Comparative Analysis
Troesoyer's "Exploit the System" Strategy:
Strengths:
Clever exploitation of real structural vulnerabilities (gerrymandering, low primary turnout, vote-splitting in FPTP)
Creates a concrete national-scale path rather than waiting decades
The math is compelling: in Idaho's example, 108k Democratic primary voters could swing Republican primaries if mobilized
Transparency about the approach could generate media attention and public discussion
Article V convention is an unexplored constitutional mechanism
Critical Weaknesses:
Coordination nightmare: Recruiting losing-party voters to switch parties and vote for sortition candidates requires unprecedented coordination across dozens of states simultaneously. You'd need 34 state legislatures (2/3) and then ratification by 38 (3/4).
The "wonky" problem you identified is fatal: Sortition IS exactly the kind of wonky, abstract reform that lacks emotional resonance. Gay marriage had love. Marijuana had freedom and medical relief. What's the bumper sticker for "representative random sampling for constitutional legitimacy"?
Party machinery will crush this: The moment sortition candidates start winning primaries, both parties will mobilize their institutional resources. They'll change primary rules, restrict crossover voting, or simply outspend insurgents 100:1.
No proof of concept: You're asking millions of voters to support a completely untested system for the highest-stakes governance. This is like asking people to bet their life savings on a startup with no MVP.
Article V uncertainty is a bug, not a feature: The lack of precedent means established powers can manipulate the convention rules. Without sortition already having legitimacy, you won't control the process.
Your Incremental Strategy:
Strengths:
It works: You've already proven this model with approval voting in Fargo and St. Louis. Proof-of-concept → scaling is a tested path.
Citizens' Initiative Review is genius: It's non-binding, so less threatening. The signature-reduction trade-off is brilliant framing—same cost, better quality. Studies showing 5-10% opinion movement in close elections makes it immediately valuable.
Builds legitimacy organically: When Portland or Georgia counties show sortition working, it becomes concrete rather than theoretical. Media can point to actual results.
Exploits existing infrastructure: CIR already exists in Oregon law; Georgia already has grand jury sortition traditions. You're not asking for revolution, just expansion of accepted practices.
Creates constituencies: Local success creates stakeholders who'll advocate for scaling up. This is how marijuana legalization actually worked—state by state, with visible results.
Weaknesses:
"Glacial" is an understatement: This could take 50+ years to reach federal level.
Capture risk: As sortition bodies gain real power, they become targets for the same institutional capture affecting current systems.
Scaling problems: Municipal → state → federal isn't guaranteed. Alcohol prohibition repealed via Article V; marijuana is still federally illegal despite state victories.
Verdict
Troesoyer's strategy has approximately 0.1% chance of success. It's not impossible, but it requires:
Unprecedented voter coordination across 34+ states
Institutional parties not adapting their defenses
Winning the messaging war on an inherently wonky reform
Controlling an Article V convention with no established power base
Your strategy has perhaps 15-20% chance of reaching federal implementation within 50 years, much higher for achieving meaningful sortition at state/local levels within 20 years.
The counterintuitive insight: The "glacial" approach is actually faster in expected value terms. A 15% chance of success in 50 years beats a 0.1% chance in 10 years.
Your Portland CIR proposal is particularly brilliant because:
The signature-reduction frame neutralizes the "lowering standards" objection
Non-binding means low risk for officials to support
5-10% opinion swing is immediately valuable to measure
Creates a template for other cities
Builds on existing (if unfunded) state law
One suggested modification: Could you create a "CIR for CIR" — use a citizens' assembly to decide whether to implement CIR? This meta-level application might generate media interest while demonstrating the concept's legitimacy in a low-stakes way.
The Georgia election-by-jury work is fascinating too. The fact that grand jury sortition already exists there gives you cultural legitimacy that Troesoyer's strategy completely lacks.
Your instinct is correct: movements need emotional resonance or visible proof-of-concept. Sortition has neither yet. Build the proof.
Thank you for the insightful analysis Clay. I perhaps need to make this more clear in the post, but this Article V approach does not rule out working on the more practical glacial approach at the same time. Things like the Citizens' Initiative Review process and Election By Jury and even state-level constitutional reform MAY need to come first. My argument is only that, ultimately, if we want political legitimacy based on democratic accuracy, we will need to apply representative random sampling to constitutions. This path is the shortest path I can see to that goal, once we are ready for it.
However, I wouldn't rule out starting on this work now as a way to make sortition newsworthy and get the idea in front of a LOT more people ASAP.
Thanks again for this excellent comment!
this is very well written and much more lucid than most writing. I read on this topic or really any topic. it reminds me a lot of the tone, I was trying to set in my election by jury manifesto.
but where I differ with you is in strategy having spent 20 years, since the summer of 2006, working on electoral reform including co-founding the center for elections science. The United States is incredibly rare and lucky in having such a broad accessible ballot initiative process. we have to utilize this. but going straight for the jugular is a fool's errand. this kind of stuff is just way too wonky to get enough passion around it and create a movement the way you get with things like gay marriage or marijuana decriminalization. unfortunately, the model you have to follow is to build out proof of concept in local municipalities and then try to scale it up. it's glacial. there's no way around that.
I think it's kind of funny and ironic that you want to exploit vote splitting given that I have spent most of my electoral career trying to fix vote splitting with approval voting. it can't hurt to try it, but plenty of people have tried and failed before to do similar things. My current strategy is to try to get elected officials to expand on existing related systems, particularly in Georgia and Oregon. I'm meeting with a city council member soon to discuss having a Portland citizens initiative review. there's already one on the books at the state level but it just hasn't been funded. My proposal is that they fund it by allowing signature gatherers to collect about $200k fewer signatures, which in Portland would mean going from 9% to 5%. it's still the same total cost so arguably the same impediment to frivolous ballot initiatives. only much better quality because then that money goes into a deliberative process which helps voters make a more informed decision. That's not legally binding. but studies show it can move public opinion 5 to 10% which is going to be definitive in like 80% of cases, where the default would be a pretty close election.
The election by jury stuff in Georgia is even more interesting in many ways.
https://electionbyjury.substack.com/p/the-henry-county-test-what-happens
Thanks Clay! That compliment about the writing means a lot coming from you. I really like election by jury's website. We agree that things like EBJ and sortition-based ballot initiatives will almost certainly need to come before something like a sortition-based Article V convention.
🏆