“Where Europeans formed a majority, or a substantial minority, they could control the outcome of the democratic process. That allowed them to effectively exclude specific groups of people: Indigenous people, slaves and the descendants of slaves could not vote. Women could not vote.”

I’m not necessarily meaning to portray a pessimistic narrative, but the fact that we’re having this conversation at all indicates that maybe we need some kind of reboot, maybe we need to consider alternatives to these long-established institutions. I can’t say too much about these kind of deliberative assemblies, the James Fishkin model of democracy (Salon stories here). I know about that, but I haven’t studied it, and I am a little dubious about how much legitimacy these assemblies might have. Are ordinary citizens going to regard their decisions as more legitimate, let’s say, then the elected assembly? I think that’s the crucial question, because governance by lot does have something to recommended it, but only if people believe that they’re a source of authority.

Source: Untangling the deep and troubled roots of democracy can help define its future | Salon.com