Forthcoming and latest publications

Declining turnout rates and political disengagement have spurred many proposals to reform contemporary democracies. Some proposals aim at electoral participation, while others seek to create alternative non-voting forms of participation in politics. This article explores a third route, where elections are used to foster democratic non-voting engagement: that is, engagement in elections, but not as voters. We propose that society actively seek to engage citizens and resident non-citizens, who are either by choice or by law currently non-voters, to participate in the different administrative aspects of elections as poll workers. Our proposal concerns paid positions for which people volunteer, rather than unpaid positions into which people are drafted, whether they want to or not. Hence, this article proposes a novel form of electoral participation that is voluntary, open, and appropriate for those unable or not yet ready to vote.

This paper provides an overview of the ethical challenges facing voters in democratic elections. It starts by examining the assumptions that underpin contemporary claims about the moral and epistemic advantages of lotteries as compared to elections and shows their similarities to arguments for ‘unveiling the vote’, as Brennan and Pettit put it. (G. Brennan & Pettit, 1990) It looks at the empirical and normative difficulties of these claims and highlights the risk of confusing morally misguided voting with injustice, and of supposing that it must be politically consequential. Finally, the paper casts doubt on the claim that democracy implies that voters should be publicly accountable to each other for their vote and that the secret ballot is, therefore, a regrettable, if necessary, concession of principle to sad reality. It concludes by drawing out the implications of its analysis for the ethics of voting in ideal, non-ideal and highly non-ideal situations.

Elections are generally considered the only way to create a democratic legislature where direct democracy is not an option. However, in recent years that assumption has been challenged by individuals who claim that lotteries are a democratic way of selecting people for office, elections are aristocratic or oligarchic, not democratic, and that elections as we know them are inadequate if true democracy is prioritized. In opposition to this wave, my paper argues that the assertions made to support the democratic merits of lotteries are unpersuasive. Current evidence that sortition is either more egalitarian or produces epistemically better results than elections is poor. Instead, these assertions illuminate the importance of elections in enabling the constituents of a democracy to reconcile the personal and political dimensions of their lives and, therefore, better reflect citizens’ claims to privacy and equality. The paper begins by recapping the main arguments for treating sortition as a democratic way to select a legislature, outlines their deficiencies, and then turns to what these perceived failings actually suggest about the democratic value of elections.