Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-l8wb7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-30T22:49:43.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How can we accept ‘our’ decisions?: an experimental study on lottocracy, epistocracy, and electoral democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2024

Akito Yamaguchi Open the ORCID record for Akito Yamaguchi [Opens in a new window] ,
Masaki Hata Open the ORCID record for Masaki Hata [Opens in a new window]  and
Akira Inoue Open the ORCID record for Akira Inoue [Opens in a new window]
Akito Yamaguchi*
Affiliation:
Department of Law and Politics, Graduate School of Law, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
Masaki Hata
Affiliation:
Faculty of Information Technology and Social Sciences, Osaka University of Economics, Osaka, Japan
Akira Inoue
Affiliation:
Department of Advanced Social and International Studies, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
*
Corresponding author: Akito Yamaguchi; Email: liverproverbiorum@yahoo.co.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lottocracy and epistocracy have received deeply insightful attention as political regimes. Herein, by conducting an experiment using an online survey, we explored the extent to which public opinion is receptive to political decisions under various regimes regarding two environmental policies: education policy and environmental tax policy. By doing so, we examined whether the presence of tax burdens affected the acceptability of political regimes, i.e., electoral democracy, lottocracy, and epistocracy. Our results revealed that decisions based on lottocracy and epistocracy were significantly less acceptable than those based on electoral democracy. Nevertheless, lottocratic and epistocratic decisions were more acceptable regarding the issue of environmental tax policy. The difference was mainly attributed to people's rejection of environmental tax policy offsetting their rejection of lottocracy and epistocracy. This suggests, first, that decisions based on electoral democracy increase policies' acceptability if they do not involve taxation, and second, that the status of whether or not a decision is electoral does not significantly affect policy acceptability if taxation is involved, whereas on the other hand, people are sensitive to differences between the regimes if the policy does not involve taxation.

Keywords

lottocracyepistocracysortitionsurvey experimentenviromental policy

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , September 2024 , pp. 123 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abizadeh, A (2021) Representation, bicameralism, political equality, and sortition: reconstituting the second chamber as a randomly selected assembly. Perspectives on Politics 19, 791–806. doi: 10.1017/S1537592719004626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, CH and Bartels, LM (2016) Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 978-0-691-16944–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnesen, S and Peters, Y (2018) The legitimacy of representation: how descriptive, formal, and responsiveness representation affect the acceptability of political decisions. Comparative Political Studies 51, 868–899. doi: 10.1177/0010414017720702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asahi Shinbun (2019) Shohi zozei no eikyo ‘fuan wo kanjiru’ 75% asahi Shinbun yoron chosa [75% of respondents ‘feel uneasy’ about the impact of the consumption tax hike: asahi shimbun poll]. 26 November 2019. Available at https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASM5N53M0M5NUZPS006.html (accessed 6 October 2023).Google Scholar
Barnett, A and Carty, P (2008) The Athenian Option. Charlottesville: Imprint Academic. ISBN-10: 1845401395.Google Scholar
Bedock, C and Pilet, J-B (2021) Who supports citizens selected by lot to be the main policymakers?: a study of French citizens. Government and Opposition 56, 485–504. doi: 10.1017/gov.2020.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, U (2020) Rethinking the epistemic case against epistocracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 23, 706–731. doi: 10.1080/13698230.2018.1497246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouricius, T (2013) Democracy through multi-body sortition: Athenian lessons for the modern day. Journal of Public Deliberation 9, 1–19. doi: 10.16997/jdd.156Google Scholar
Brambor, T, William, RC and Golder, M (2006) Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis 14, 63–82. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpi014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, J (2016) Against Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691162607.Google Scholar
Brennan, J (2018) Does the demographic objection to epistocracy succeed? Res Publica (liverpool, England) 24, 53–71. doi: 10.1007/s11158-017-9385-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstein, H and Hein, M (2009) Randomizing Europe: the lottery as a decision-making procedure for policy creation in the EU. Critical Policy Studies 3, 29–57. doi: 10.1080/19460170903158081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgers, JW (2015) Are citizens capable of representing themselves?’ Constellations (oxford, England) 22, 13–30. doi: 10.1111/1467-8675.12143Google Scholar
Callenbach, E and Phillips, M (2008) A Citizen Legislature. Exeter: Imprint Academic. ISBN-10 0960432051.Google Scholar
Campbell, A, Converse, PE, Miller, WE and Stokes, DE (1960) The American Voter. New York: John Wiley. ISBN-10: 0226092542.Google Scholar
Caplan, B (2007) The Myth of the Rational Voter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691138732.Google Scholar
Carnes, N and Lupu, N (2023) The economic backgrounds of politicians. Annual Review of Political Science 26, 253–270. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, L and Martin, B (1999) Random Selection in Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger. ISBN: 0-275-96702-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CRS Report for Congress (2012) 2012 annual report of the congressional research service. [Online] Available at https://www.scribd.com/doc/296990681/2012-Annual-Report-of-the-Congressional-Research-Service (accessed 6 October 2023).Google Scholar
Dahl, R (2015) On Democracy, 2nd Edn. New Heaven: Yale University Press. ISBN-10: 0300194463.Google Scholar
Deli-Carpini, M and Keeter, S (1996) What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN-10: 0300072759.Google Scholar
Douglas, KM, Uscinski, JE, Sutton, RM, Cichocka, A., Nefes, T., Ang, CS and Deravi, F (2019) Understanding conspiracy theories. Political Psychology 40, 3–35. doi: 10.1111/pops.12568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eshima, S and Smith, DM (2022) Just a number?: voter evaluations of age in candidate-choice experiments. Journal of Politics 84, 1856–1861. doi.org/10.1086/719005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, DM (2008) Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN-10: 0691143242.Google Scholar
Farrell, DM and Stone, P (2018) Sortition and mini-publics: a different kind of representation. In Rohrschneider, R and Thomassen, J (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Representation in Liberal Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 228–248. ISBN: 978-0-19-882508-1.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J (2009) When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN-10: 0199604436.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J (2018) Democracy When the People Are Thinking: Revitalizing Our Politics Through Public Deliberation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN-10: 0198820291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fournier, P, Kolk, H, Carty, RK, Blais, A and Rose, J (2011) When Citizens Decide: Lessons From Citizen Assemblies on Electoral Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN-13: 978-0199567843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J and Wright, EO (eds.) (2019) Legislature by Lot: Transformative Designs for Deliberative Governance. London: Verso. ISBN-13: 978-1-78873-608-4.Google Scholar
Gilens, M (2012) Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN-10: 0691162425.Google Scholar
González-Ricoy, I and Gosseries, A (eds) (2016) Institutions for Future Generations. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780198746959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, AA (2014) Against elections: the lottocratic alternative. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 42, 135–178. doi: 10.1111/papa.12029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, AA (2021) The epistemic pathologies of elections and the epistemic promise of lottocracy. In Edenberg, E and Hannon, M (eds), Political Epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 156–179. ISBN-13: 9780192893338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horiuchi, Y, Smith, DM and Yamamoto, T (2020) Identifying voter preferences for politicians’ personal attributes: a conjoint experiment in Japan. Political Science Research and Methods 8: 75–91. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2018.26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, S and Wiens, D (2021) Demographic objections to epistocracy: a ceneralization. Philosophy and Public Affairs 49, 323–349. doi: 10.1111/papa.12199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquet, V, Niessen, C and Reuchamps, M (2022) Sortition, its advocates and its critics: an empirical analysis of citizens’ and MPs’ support for random selection as a democratic reform proposal. International Political Science Review 43, 295–316. doi: 10.1177/0192512120949958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klocksiem, J (2019) Epistocracy is a wolf in wolf's clothing. Journal of Ethics 23, 19–36. doi: 10.1007/s10892-019-09279-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafont, C (2020) Democracy Without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN-13: 9780198848189.Google Scholar
Landa, D and Pevnick, R (2021) Is random selection a cure for the ills of electoral representation? Journal of Political Philosophy 29, 46–72. doi: 10.1111/jopp.12219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landemore, H (2020) Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691181998.Google Scholar
Leib, EJ (2004) Deliberative Democracy in America: A Proposal for A Popular Branch of Government. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN-10: 0271026979.Google Scholar
Lupia, A and McCubbins, MD (1998) The Democratic Dilemma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN-10: 0521585937.Google Scholar
Lupu, N and Warner, Z (2022) Affluence and congruence: unequal representation around the world. Journal of Politics 84, 276–290. doi.org/10.1086/714930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, MK (2016) A general-purpose, randomly selected chamber. In González-Ricoy, I and Gosseries, A (eds), Institutions for Future Generations. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 282–298. ISBN-13: 9780198746959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madison, J (1787) The Federalist Papers 10. Founders Online, National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178 (accessed 6 October 2023).Google Scholar
Manin, B (1997) The Principle of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0-521-45258-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathisen, R, Schakei, W, Hense, S, Elsässer, L, Persson, M and Pontusson, J (2024) Unequal responsiveness and government partisanship in northwest Europe. In Lupu, N and Pontusson, J (eds), Unequal Democracies: Public Policy, Responsiveness, and Redistribution in an Era of Rising Economic Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–53. doi: 10.1017/9781009428682Google Scholar
Mellier-Wilson, C (2020) Convention citoyenne pour le climat: what can we learn from the French citizens’ assembly on climate change? Involve. 2 March 2020 [Online]. Available at https://involve.org.uk/news-opinion/convention-citoyenne-pour-le-climat-what-can-we-learn-french-citizens-assembly-climate (accessed 6 October 2023).Google Scholar
Miwa, H, Kasuya, Y and Ono, Y (2023) Voters’ perceptions and evaluations of dynastic politics in Japan. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 8, 671–688. doi.org/10.1177/20578911221144101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moraro, P (2018) Against epistocracy. Social Theory and Practice 44, 199–216. doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract20185835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, DC, Tollison, RD and Willett, TD (1972) Representative democracy via random selection. Public Choice 12, 57–68. doi: 10.1007/BF01718470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulvad, AM and Popp-Madsen, BA (2021) Sortition-infused democracy: empowering citizens in the age of climate emergency. Thesis Eleven 167, 77–98. doi.org/10.1177/07255136211056997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikkei Asia (2019) IMF urges graying Japan to raise consumption tax to 15%: fund calls for inflation target flexibility as chief backs Tokyo's stimulus. 26 November 2019. Available at https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/IMF-urges-graying-Japan-to-raise-consumption-tax-to-15 (accessed 1 February 2024).Google Scholar
O'Leary, K (2006) Saving Democracy: A Plan for Real Representation in America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ISBN-13: 9780804754989.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, DM, Meyvis, T and Davidenko, N (2009) Instructional manipulation checks: detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45, 867–872. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiss, J (2019) Expertise, agreement, and the nature of social scientific facts or: against epistocracy. Social Epistemology 33, 183–192. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2019.1577513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, S and Coppock, A (2022) What have we learned about gender from candidate choice experiments? A meta-analysis of sixty-seven factorial survey experiments. Journal of Politics 84, 655–668. doi.org/10.1086/716290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somin, I (2013) The Problem of Political Ignorance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ISBN: 9780804798037.Google Scholar
Somin, I (2022) The promise and peril of epistocracy. Inquiry: A Journal of Medical Care Organization, Provision and Financing 65, 27–34. doi: 10.1080/0020174X.2019.1663019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalks, B (2017) Democracy's success at home, but value voice of the people. Pew Research Center. 17 October 2017 [Online]. Available at https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/10/17/japanese-divided-on-democracys-success-at-home-but-value-voice-of-the-people/ (accessed 6 October 2023).Google Scholar
Umbers, LM (2019) Democratic legitimacy and the competence objection. Res Publica (liverpool, England) 25, 283–293. doi: 10.1007/s11158-018-9395-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umbers, LM (2021) Against lottocracy. European Journal of Political Theory 20, 312–334. doi: 10.1177/1474885118783602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Oosten, S, Mügge, L and van der Pas, D (2024) Race/ethnicity in candidate experiments: a meta-analysis and the case for shared identification. Acta Politica 59, 19–41. doi.org/10.1057/s41269-022-00279-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandamme, PÉ (2020) What's wrong with an epistocratic council? Politics 40, 90–105. doi: 10.1177/0263395719836348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Reybrouck, D (2016) Against Elections: The Case for Democracy. London: Random House. ISBN-10: 9781847924223.Google Scholar
Vegne, A (2010) A brief survey of the literature of sortition: is the age of sortition upon us? In Delannoi, G and Dowlen, O (eds), Sortition: Theory and Practice. Exeter: Imprint Academic, pp. 69–87. doi: 10.1017/S1537592711003574Google Scholar
Viehoff, D (2016) Authority and expertise. Journal of Political Philosophy 24, 406–426. doi: 10.1111/jopp.12100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Values Survey (2020) WVS wave seven 2017–2020. [Online]. Available at http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp (accessed 6 October 2023).Google Scholar
Zakaras, A (2010) Lot and democratic representation: a modest proposal. Constellations (oxford, England) 17, 455–471. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8675.2010.00608.xGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Yamaguchi et al. supplementary material

Yamaguchi et al. supplementary material
Download Yamaguchi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 215.5 KB