Political Decision-making, Lottocracy, and AI

PDF
Published: Jun 30, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/cjp.35215
Keywords:
lottocracy AI explanation and responsibility authorization autonomy
Joe Slater
University of Glasgow, United Kingdom
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2269-7235
Abstract

This article examines an argument for single-issue legislatures (SILs) as an alternative to typical decision-making procedures in representative democracies. It is argued that if this argument was successful, it could be extended to endorse decision-making processes utilizing advanced artificial intelligence. However, it is noted that this argument neglects an important feature of decision-making: authorization. It is important for its autonomy that a society must authorize certain decisions. If decisions were delegated to SILs or AI, this would undermine the autonomy of the group. This does not entail that these alternatives have no role in policy-crafting. It is argued that so long as a community can authorize a decision, perhaps by a vote, it need not undermine autonomy. An important caveat of this, however, is that the decision must be explicable to the community. For AI usage, this motivates the need for explainable AI (XAI).

Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (preferably in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Author Biography
Joe Slater, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom

Lecturer (Philosophy).

References
Anderson, Michael, Susan Leigh Anderson, Alkis Gounaris, and George Kosteletos. “Towards Moral Machines: A Discussion with Michael Anderson and Susan Leigh Anderson.” Conatus – Journal of Philosophy 6, no. 1 (2021): 177-202. doi: https://doi.org/10.12681/cjp.26832.
Asimov, Isaac. “Franchise.” In If: Worlds of Science Fiction, edited by James L. Quinn, 2-15. Quinn Publishing, 1955.
Brennan, Jason. Against Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Buchstein, Hubertus. “Lottocracy and Deliberative Accountability.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 47, no. 1 (2021): 40-44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453720964994.
Colburn, Ben. “Autonomy, Voluntariness and Assisted Dying.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46, no. 5 (2020): 316-319. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105720.
Colburn, Ben. Autonomy and Liberalism. Routledge, 2010.
Conly, Sarah. Against Autonomy. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Crawford, Kate, and Jason Schultz. “AI Systems as State Actors.” Colombia Law Review 119, no. 7 (2019): 1941-1972.
Deeks, Ashley. “The Judicial Demand for Explainable Artificial Intelligence.” Columbia Law Review 119, no. 7 (2019): 1829-1850.
Denes, Gyorgy. “A Case Study of Using AI for General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) Grade Prediction in a Selective Independent School in England.” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 4 (2023): 100-129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100129.
Dorfman, Avihay, and Alon Harel. Reclaiming the Public. Cambridge University Press, 2024.
Dworkin, Gerald. “Autonomy and Behavior Control.” Hastings Center Report 6, no. 1 (1976): 23-28.
Gershgorn, Dave. “Companies Are on the Hook if Their Hiring Algorithms Are Biased.” Quartz, October 22, 2018. https://qz.com/1427621/companies-are-on-the-hook-if-their-hiring-algorithms-are-biased.
Gilbert, Margaret. “Shared Intentions and Personal Intentions.” Philosophical Studies 144, no. 1 (2009): 167-187.
Guerrero, Alexander. “Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 42, no. 2 (2014): 135-178. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12029.
Hicks, Michael Townsen, James Humphries, and Joe Slater. “ChatGPT is Bullshit.” Ethics and Information Technology 26, no. 38 (2024): 1-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5.
Kamiski, Margot, and Jennifer Urban. “The Right to Contest AI.” Columbia Law Review 121, no. 7 (2021): 1957-2048.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. A German-English Edition. Translated by Mary Gregor and Jens Timmermann. Cambridge University Press, 2023.
Kim, Pauline T., and Matthew T. Bodie. “Artificial Intelligence and the Challenges of Workplace Discrimination and Privacy.” ABA Journal of Labor and Employment Law 289, no. 35 (2021): 289-315.
Lafont, Cristina. “A Militant Defence of Democracy: A Few Replies to my Critics.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 47, no. 1 (2021): 69-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453720974727.
Lafont, Cristina. Democracy without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2020.
López-Guerra, Claudio. “The Enfranchisement Lottery.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 10, no. 2 (2010): 211-233. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X09372206.
Macleod, Christopher. “Mill on Autonomy.” In The Routledge Handbook of Autonomy, edited by Ben Colburn, 75-84. Routledge, 2023.
Mill, John Stuart. Considerations on Representative Government. Parker, Son, and Bourn, 1861.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Broadview Press, 1859.
Oshana, Marina. Personal Autonomy in Society. Routledge, 2006.
Piper, Mark. “Justifying Respect for Autonomy.” In The Routledge Handbook of Autonomy, edited by Ben Colburn, 293-302. Routledge, 2023.
Plato. Republic. Translated by Robin Waterfield. Oxford University Press, 1993.
Purves, Duncan, and Davies Jeremy. “Should Algorithms that Predict Recidivism Have Access to Race?” American Philosophical Quarterly 60, no. 2 (2023): 205-220.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition. Harvard University Press, 1999.
Raz, Joseph. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford University Press, 1988.
Ritchie, Katherine. “The Metaphysics of Social Groups.” Philosophy Compass 10, no. 5 (2015): 310-321. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12213.
Scanlon, Thomas M. What We Owe To Each Other. Harvard University Press, 1998.
Schaab, Janis. “Kant on Autonomy of the Will.” In The Routledge Handbook of Autonomy, edited by Ben Colburn, 44-54. Routledge, 2023.
Slater, Joe, James Humphries, and Michael Townsen Hicks. “ChatGPT Isn’t ‘Hallucinating’ – It’s Bullshitting.” Scientific American 34, no. 1 (2025): 46-47.
Umbers, Lachlan Montgomery. “Against Lottocracy.” European Journal of Political Theory 20, no. 2 (2021): 312-334. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885118783602.
Wellman, Christopher Heath. “The Paradox of Group Autonomy.” In Autonomy. Social Philosophy and Policy, edited by Ellen Franken Paul, Fred D. Miller Jr, and Jeffrey Paul, 265-285. Cambridge University Press, 2003.