[Election-Methods] Determining representativeness of multiwinner methods

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Terry Bouricius wrote:
> That brings me to an interesting issue, which may be off-topic for this 
> list..."sortition"...the selection of a legislative body by means of 
> modern sampling methods that assure a fully representative body. There is 
> an interesting history of the tension between sortition on one hand and 
> election on the other (Athenian democracy used both), where sortition was 
> seen as the more democratic method, with election being the lesser 
> (because candidates with more money or fame had such an advantage over 
> average citizens). It is the old question of whether representative 
> democracy should be seen as "self-governance," or "consent of the 
> governed."

Possibly taking this thread even further off topic, I could mention a 
hybrid I once thought of. If there's a legislature of 360 members (to 
use a highly composite number), use random sampling to construct 36 
groups - juries or citizens' assemblies - each of which elect ten from 
their own numbers to the main assembly.

Assuming the jury voters know what they're doing, the final 
representatives would have greater skills than a randomly selected 
assembly, yet they would not be as prone to corruption and 
"aristocratic" effects as a directly elected assembly (since nobody can 
tell who'll make up the first-round juries, and thus no shadowy group 
could run ads on the behalf of any of those candidates).

One disadvantage to this method is that minorities of less than a tenth 
of the population won't be represented (since each jury only elects ten 
members). Another is that it may be considered undemocratic since only 
(36 * members of each jury) have any say in the final outcome.

The size of the assemblies, and how many they elect, could be tuned as 
desired to reflect a particular position on the sortition-election spectrum.