Introduction

Sortition is the use of random selection to create manageable, representative panels of group members who are then empowered to make decisions on behalf of the whole group or organization. It is slowly beginning to gain some traction as an alternative to local and national electoral systems. I believe that in an era of polarizing algorithms and AI, it could offer the same benefits and be even more relevant to DAO governance. In essence, my argument is:

1. DAOs are vulnerable to attack via their community and governance structure
2. Voting is a key weakness due to its inherent corruptibility
3. DAOs need to harness the power of random representation to address the risks of vote-based electioneering

A DAO’s weakest link is its own governance

Blockchain technology was explicitly designed to fix systemic economic weaknesses. Bitcoin’s first ever block contained a reference to the 2008 banking crisis implying that Bitcoin’s fixed issuance would solve the devaluation weakness inherent in fiat currencies. However, the Bitcoin community was never provided with a similarly robust governance solution to manage systemic political weaknesses. This has led to a series of very public crises from the 2015/17 block size debate which caused multiple competitor forks of the chain to the recent furore over BRC-20 tokens like Ordinals whose popularity has spiked transaction costs but expanded the horizon of possibility for the chain.

As crypto communities have evolved they have adopted more formalized governance structures based around DAOs using structured, transparent and permissioned platforms like Discord instead of relying on the chaos of Twitter. With these more controlled spaces have grown new online governance structures often taking inspiration from offline national democratic structures, so it should come as no surprise that they inherit with them the inherent fallibility of their predecessors. 

The inherent weakness of voting

The vast majority of DAOs have gravitated towards voting as their go-to decision making solution which brings with it all the inherent corruptibility of the vote-based political systems that these communities are trying to escape. Some larger DAOs, such as the Ethereum Layer 2 chain Optimism, have innovated on existing bi-cameral governance structures but the main decision-making protocol in almost every iteration of DAO governance is still voting. As the recent governance crisis at Aragon DAO showed, attackers have spotted these governance vulnerabilities and are using ‘social engineering’ to attack the DAO community and attempt a 51% attack on their treasuries not via the chain but through swamping the voting community with propaganda messaging in their Discord platform.

It has long been known that vote-based representative democracy inevitably gives rise to oligarchy. As the inventors of democracy, Athenians regarded elections as “inherently aristocratic, since only those with money and status could win”. In fact, the undemocratic nature of voting has been “the general view among political theorists from Aristotle to Montesquieu and Rousseau (Manin 1997).”

Here are some key problems associated with electoral (voting-based) governance systems:

1. Lack of Representation: Electoral systems often result in under-represented or marginalized groups having limited voice and influence. Factors such as financial resources, political affiliations and media coverage can disproportionately favor certain candidates or parties, leading to a lack of diversity and representation in decision-making bodies.
2. Party Politics and Polarization: Electoral systems tend to reinforce party politics and partisan divisions. Candidates align themselves with specific political parties which can lead to polarization and adversarial dynamics rather than collaboration and consensus-building. This can hinder effective governance and the ability to address complex societal challenges.
3. Voter Apathy and Disengagement: Many electoral systems struggle with low voter turnout and apathy among the electorate. Factors such as disillusionment, lack of trust in political institutions, and the perception of limited impact on the decision-making process can contribute to disengagement. This diminishes the legitimacy and effectiveness of elected bodies.
4. Electoral Corruption and Influence of Money: Electoral systems are susceptible to corruption and undue influence. Issues such as campaign financing, lobbying, and bribery can undermine the integrity of the electoral process, eroding public trust and leading to decisions that prioritize the interests of powerful elites rather than the general welfare.
5. Media Bias and Manipulation: Media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion during electoral campaigns. However, media bias, misinformation and manipulation can significantly impact the outcomes of elections. Biased reporting, sensationalism and the spread of fake news can distort public understanding and hinder the ability to make informed choices.
6. Winner-Takes-All and Exclusionary Nature: Many electoral systems operate on a winner-takes-all basis where the candidate or party with a simple majority takes control often leaving significant portions of the population unrepresented. This exclusionary nature can lead to a sense of alienation and perpetuate societal divisions.
7. Limited Accountability and Transparency: Electoral governance systems can face challenges in ensuring accountability and transparency. The influence of special interest groups, lack of effective oversight mechanisms and opaque decision-making processes can hinder the ability to hold elected officials accountable for their actions and decisions.

Even as electoral systems prove themselves fallible again and again and again, DAOs are queuing up to use the Snapshot decentralized voting platform which is now favoured by many of the top 10 DAOs by TVL. It has long been known that these default token voting systems are extremely vulnerable. Understandably, the crypto community has attempted to upgrade these voting systems using mathematical and technological approaches; many have adopted Quadratic Voting which uses math to counter the propensity towards polarization inherent in traditional ‘one token, one vote’ systems. Despite these advances and other attempts to manage vulnerabilities from Sybil attacks and through the collusion of voters, it seems that no one is taking seriously the many other voting vulnerabilities described above.

The power of random numbers

Going back to Athenian times, voting was always viewed as inferior to random selection; to them it was “an essential feature of democracy”. Even when voting was deployed, it turns out that “votes on most matters before the People’s Assembly were never actually counted. Instead, nine randomly selected citizens simply estimated the show of hands”. Random selection has been used increasingly since the development of the mathematics of probability in the 1600s. It was seen as providing an ethical purity…, used to calculate annuities and insurance risk and importantly to verify medical advances through the use of control trials not to mention the impartiality of jury verdicts. It eventually led to the evolution of opinion polls in the early 1900s. Historically then, random numbers have often been turned to to solve governance issues.

Today’s electorates, both on and offline, face an additional barrage of mathematical and technological forces of governance corruption. The information they consume is often skewed by algorithmically prioritized news feeds that confirm our biases and lead to increasingly polarized politics. AI’s capability of generating industrial quantities of fake news will pump steroids into this already alarming phenomenon. Perhaps, now is the time once again for random numbers to offer an intriguing solution: pitching the purity of randomness against the technologically enhanced powers of persuasion. “What if, instead of trying to erase luck, we embraced it?”

Sortition IRL

Sortition tackles the limitations of traditional electoral systems by eliminating biases and favoritism and fostering fair representation. It randomizes the selection of representatives, greatly reducing the potential for corruption fueled by money and power. Moreover, sortition cultivates diversity and balance within decision-making bodies, serving as a countermeasure to political polarization. Through the infusion of varied perspectives, it encourages thoughtful deliberation and facilitates consensus-building.

The democratizing impact of sortition is palpable. It significantly lowers barriers to entry by bypassing the need for costly campaigns and political connections. This opens the door for individuals from all walks of life to participate in the decision-making process, injecting fresh voices and unique perspectives into governance. Additionally, the legitimacy of decision-making bodies is strengthened by the random selection process, enhancing public trust and confidence.

Existing examples of governance involving Sortition include:

• Juries: Trial by jury is a common example of sortition in action. Jurors are randomly selected from the eligible population to hear and decide on legal cases. This ensures that the jury is representative of the community and promotes impartial decision-making.
• Citizens’ assemblies: Citizens’ assemblies have been used in various countries, such as Ireland, Canada, and Australia, to involve citizens in policy-making and constitutional reform processes. Members are randomly selected to form a representative sample of the population and they engage in deliberative discussions to reach a consensus on specific policy issues.
• Citizen juries or panels: In recent years, citizen juries or panels have been used to involve the public in policy-making, urban planning and budget allocation decisions. These small, randomly selected groups of citizens meet to discuss specific issues, learn from experts and make recommendations to decision-makers.

Sortition in web3 governance

DAOs are perhaps the closest web3 comes to nation states. They have revolutionized governance in the crypto space, institutionalising principles such as decentralisation, random rewards, wisdom of the crowds, proof of stake, validator pools and networks of trust. By incorporating sortition in DAO governance structures, the democratic principles already inherent in crypto networks could be amplified.

There are two key factors that should be considered before implementing Sortition within DAOs or any organisation: representation and structure.

Randomized representation

The first consideration is the more technical way in which members of a panel are selected as it must both be both representative of the entire community and fair in terms of the probability of all members to serve. Ensuring that both of these considerations are met is made complicated by the different panel participation rates of community members. In order to be a good representation of a community, a panel should include members that exhibit important community-defining traits in proportion to their existence in the community. These traits might be gender, location or time spent in the community or they might include affiliation to important themes or topics within the community. For example, the selection of a panel might seek to ensure the same proportion in the community of women and men, nationalities, languages or perhaps people who align with certain ways of thinking (eg. pro-business or pro-community).

With modern understanding of probability and scientific sampling, we know that a representative sample does not need to keep growing in proportion to the growth of the population being sampled. A sample of 6,000 citizens (typical of the Athenian People’s Assembly) could accurately represent a population of 300,000,000 as well as 30,000. However, ensuring that those chosen are representative of the significant categories of a population is a non-trivial problem particularly if you have to rely on voluntary participation as participants will not volunteer in perfection proportion to the categories of people represented in a population.

Recent research into Sortition algorithms have attempted to deal with this issue by comparing a benchmark based on existing data from citizens’ assemblies to the results from adapted algorithms and has led to “substantially fairer selection probabilities… putting the practice of sortition on firmer foundations”.

Generating randomness on the blockchain

Blockchain-based sortition selection methods and technologies can provide secure, transparent and verifiable ways to randomly select participants for various roles in sortition-based DAOs. Here are some approaches and technologies that might be useful:

1. On-chain Random Number Generation (RNG):

On-chain RNG is a technique for generating random numbers directly within the blockchain using the existing protocol. Miners or validators include a random value in each block which is then combined with other random values to produce a random number. This number can be used to select participants for various sortition bodies. Examples include:

– RANDAO: RANDAO is a DAO-based RNG mechanism that relies on participants submitting secret values, which are then combined to generate a random number. This process is secure as long as at least one participant remains honest and keeps their value secret until the reveal phase.

– Blockhash RNG: This method uses the hash of a predetermined future block as the random number. However, it may be vulnerable to manipulation by miners or validators, so additional measures should be taken to ensure fairness.

2. Off-chain Random Number Generation with On-chain Verification:

In this approach, random numbers are generated off-chain using a trusted source, such as a hardware random number generator or a trusted oracle and then verified on-chain. This can ensure secure and unbiased randomness, provided that the trusted source remains tamper-proof and verifiable. Examples include:

– Chainlink VRF: Chainlink Verifiable Random Function (VRF) is a decentralized oracle network that provides provably random numbers with on-chain verification. Chainlink VRF generates a random number off-chain using a secure cryptographic function which is then verified on-chain using the associated proof.

– Keep Random Beacon: Keep Random Beacon is a decentralized RNG protocol that relies on threshold cryptography to generate random numbers. A group of nodes collaborates to generate a random number and, as long as at least one node is honest, the result is unpredictable and unbiased. The generated number can be verified on-chain.

3. Commit-Reveal Schemes:

Commit-reveal schemes involve participants committing to a secret value on-chain which is then revealed at a later time. The revealed values are combined to generate a random number ensuring that no single participant can manipulate the outcome. This method can be used to randomly select members for various sortition bodies in a DAO.

4. Token-based Sortition:

Token-based sortition leverages the existing token holdings or voting power of DAO members to determine their probability of being selected for a sortition body. This can be achieved using on-chain RNG and weighted selection algorithms. The resulting selection process is transparent and verifiable, ensuring fairness and minimizing the potential for manipulation.

These blockchain-based sortition selection methods and technologies can provide secure, transparent and verifiable randomness for selecting members of sortition-based DAO governance structures. By integrating these methods into the DAO’s smart contracts and decision-making processes the sortition process can be automated and streamlined while maintaining the core principles of fairness, representativeness, and impartiality.

Structuring for Sortition

The structure of DAO organizations and specifically its size is the second key consideration. In smaller DAOs, simply deploying a jury-style sortition system for one-off decision-making can be effective. Randomly selected members can serve for a specific duration, enabling them to make informed decisions within their designated scope. This approach guarantees equal participation and fair representation among members, regardless of their wealth or status. For larger DAOs, a more intricate sortition framework is required. Panels, boards, and councils can be established to manage specific governance aspects, promoting efficiency and specialization. A board may oversee development, while a panel manages the DAO’s budget. Furthermore, an assembly, composed of randomly selected members from various sortition bodies, can serve as the highest decision-making body, ensuring broad representation and the wisdom of the crowds.

The Athenian separation of powers between multiple randomly selected bodies and the self-selected attendees of the People’s Assembly achieved three important goals that our modern elected legislatures do not:

1) the legislative bodies were relatively descriptively representative of the citizenry; 

2) they were highly resistant to corruption and undue concentration of political power; and 

3) the opportunity to participate – and make decisions – was spread broadly throughout the relevant population.

A proposal for Sortition structure in a DAO of 1,000 members

For a DAO of 1000 people or less, a simple yet effective sortition-based governance structure can be implemented using a single-tier system with a General Assembly and a Steering Committee. This streamlined structure ensures efficient decision-making while maintaining the core principles of fairness, representativeness and impartiality.

1. General Assembly:

The General Assembly comprises all DAO members and serves as the ultimate decision-making body. In this smaller DAO, the General Assembly is responsible for debating and voting on significant proposals, amendments to the organization’s constitution, and any other high-level decisions. The assembly may convene periodically (e.g., quarterly) or on an ad-hoc basis when necessary.

2. Steering Committee:

The Steering Committee is a randomly selected group of DAO members (e.g., 15-25 individuals) responsible for managing day-to-day operations, executing the decisions of the General Assembly, and coordinating with various domain-specific working groups or subcommittees. The Steering Committee serves for a fixed term (e.g., six months to one year) and rotates regularly to ensure fresh perspectives and prevent the concentration of power. The term length and rotation frequency should be determined based on the DAO’s specific needs and objectives.

3. Domain-Specific Working Groups or Subcommittees:

To manage specific areas or tasks within the DAO (e.g., finance, marketing, technical development), domain-specific working groups or subcommittees can be established. These groups can be formed voluntarily by interested members or through random selection, depending on the DAO’s preferences. These working groups are accountable to the Steering Committee and collaborate with other groups to ensure smooth operations.

4. Conflict Resolution:

In the event of disputes or conflicts within the DAO, a randomly selected Conflict Resolution Panel can be formed to address and resolve the issue. This panel consists of a small number of DAO members (e.g., 5-7 individuals) who review the case, conduct an impartial investigation, and present a resolution or recommendation. If necessary, the Conflict Resolution Panel’s decision can be escalated to the General Assembly for further review.

This simple sortition-based governance structure ensures that a small DAO operates efficiently while maintaining democratic principles and fair representation. By relying on a General Assembly, a Steering Committee, and domain-specific working groups or subcommittees, the DAO can effectively manage its operations and make crucial decisions while minimizing bureaucracy and promoting decentralization.

Summaries for Sortition structure in DAOs of other sizes

1. DAO of 100 members:

In a small DAO with 100 members, a simple governance structure would involve a General Assembly and one or more Working Groups.

– General Assembly: Comprising all DAO members, the General Assembly serves as the primary decision-making body. Major decisions and proposals can be voted on by all members, ensuring equal representation and democratic decision-making.

– Working Groups: Members can voluntarily join or be randomly selected to form Working Groups focusing on specific tasks or domains (e.g., finance, marketing, development). Working Groups are responsible for day-to-day operations and report back to the General Assembly on their progress and decisions.

2. DAO of 10,000 members:

For a medium-sized DAO with 10,000 members, a three-tiered governance structure consisting of a General Assembly, a Steering Committee, and Domain-Specific Panels would be appropriate.

– General Assembly: Comprising all DAO members, the General Assembly serves as the ultimate decision-making body for significant proposals and high-level decisions.

– Steering Committee: A randomly selected group of members (e.g., 50-100 individuals) manages day-to-day operations and coordinates with Domain-Specific Panels. The Steering Committee ensures smooth governance by overseeing the implementation of General Assembly decisions and maintaining cross-panel communication.

– Domain-Specific Panels: Randomly selected panels of members manage specific areas or tasks within the DAO. These panels are responsible for their domain’s day-to-day operations and report to the Steering Committee.

3. DAO of 1 million members:

For a large DAO with 1 million members, a more complex governance structure is necessary to ensure efficiency and representation. A multi-tiered system comprising a General Assembly, Regional Councils, a Central Council, and Domain-Specific Boards could be implemented.

– General Assembly: Comprising all DAO members, the General Assembly serves as the highest decision-making body for major proposals, constitutional amendments, and other high-level decisions.

– Regional Councils: To ensure representation across a large membership base, randomly selected Regional Councils can be formed. These councils are responsible for regional decision-making and representation, addressing local issues, and coordinating with the Central Council.

– Central Council: The Central Council is composed of representatives from each Regional Council. This body oversees high-level decision-making and coordinates with Domain-Specific Boards to ensure smooth governance across the entire DAO.

– Domain-Specific Boards: Randomly selected boards of members manage specific areas or tasks within the DAO. These boards are responsible for day-to-day operations in their respective domains and report to the Central Council.

Regionalisation to achieve scale

For larger DAOs requiring Regional Councils to be formed legitimately and without conflict with other regions, it is crucial to establish a clear and fair process that is transparent, impartial and well-communicated to all DAO members. Here are some steps to follow:

1. Define Regions: First, clearly define the regions within the DAO. This can be based on geographical location, time zones, or other relevant criteria. The key is to ensure that each region is well-represented and that the division is fair and logical.

2. Establish Selection Criteria: Define the selection criteria for Regional Council members. This may include a minimum level of involvement in the DAO, expertise in specific areas, or other relevant qualifications. The criteria should be transparent and objective to ensure fairness in the selection process.

3. Random Selection Process: Implement a transparent and impartial random selection process to form the Regional Councils. This can be done using blockchain-based sortition methods, as previously discussed, to ensure that the selection process is secure, verifiable, and tamper-proof.

4. Rotation and Term Limits: Establish term limits and rotation schedules for Regional Council members to ensure fresh perspectives and prevent the concentration of power. This will help maintain fairness and prevent potential conflicts between regions.

5. Clear Mandate and Responsibilities: Provide a clear mandate and set of responsibilities for each Regional Council. This will help to define their role within the DAO’s governance structure, reduce the potential for overlapping responsibilities and minimize conflicts between regions.

6. Communication and Collaboration: Encourage open communication and collaboration between Regional Councils and the Central Council. This can be done through regular meetings, shared communication channels and collaborative decision-making platforms. Fostering a culture of cooperation will help to prevent conflicts and ensure that the needs of all regions are considered in the DAO’s decision-making process.

7. Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: Establish clear and impartial conflict resolution mechanisms for addressing disputes between Regional Councils or between a Regional Council and the Central Council. This may involve a randomly selected mediation panel or an escalation process that involves the General Assembly.

Objections & mitigations

While sortition offers several advantages as a governance solution for DAOs, there are potential objections and concerns that might be raised and each of these has a potential mitigation:

		Objection	Mitigation
1	Lack of expertise	Randomly selected representatives may lack the necessary expertise or experience to make informed decisions on complex issues, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes.	Introduce training and support programs for randomly selected representatives to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the relevant issues. Additionally, involve subject matter experts to provide guidance and advice when needed.
2	Limited accountability	In a sortition-based system, representatives are not directly accountable to a specific electorate. This could reduce their incentives to act in the best interests of the DAO or address the concerns of its members.	Implement mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the performance of representatives, and establish procedures for DAO members to raise concerns or initiate the removal of underperforming representatives.
3	Reduced incentives for participation	Without the possibility of re-election, representatives selected through sortition may have less motivation to engage actively in governance, as they know their term will be limited.	Offer non-monetary incentives such as recognition, skill development opportunities, and networking benefits to encourage active engagement from representatives. Additionally, consider providing monetary compensation for time and effort invested in governance roles.
4	Risk of manipulation	Although sortition reduces the potential for corruption and influence, there could still be risks of manipulation, particularly in the random selection process, if it is not adequately secured and transparent.	Utilize secure, transparent, and verifiable blockchain-based sortition methods for the random selection process. Ensure the process is tamper-proof and resistant to external influence.
5	Difficulty in scaling	For very large DAOs, sortition-based governance structures could become complex and unwieldy, as the need for multiple layers and bodies to ensure adequate representation may introduce inefficiencies and communication challenges.	Design a modular governance structure that can accommodate large membership numbers while maintaining efficiency. Introduce communication and coordination mechanisms to facilitate seamless interactions between different governance layers and bodies.
6	Perceived illegitimacy	Some DAO members may perceive sortition as less legitimate than traditional election-based systems, due to the absence of an explicit mandate from the electorate.	Educate DAO members about the benefits of sortition and its potential to enhance fairness and representativeness. Ensure transparency in the selection process and decision-making, and promote open dialogue about the advantages and drawbacks of sortition-based governance.
7	Resistance to change	Established organizations and individuals used to traditional, election-based governance systems may be resistant to adopting sortition-based models, due to concerns about the unfamiliarity of the approach or potential disruption to existing power structures.	Engage with DAO members and stakeholders to address their concerns and provide information on the potential benefits of sortition. Consider implementing a phased approach, gradually introducing sortition-based elements into the existing governance structure, and evaluating the results before fully transitioning to a sortition-based system.

Further research required

To facilitate the practical implementation of the proposed multi-tiered sortition governance structure for DAOs, a comprehensive research agenda must be pursued. This research should focus on developing robust and constructive support for the development and implementation of these governance structures. Key areas of inquiry include:

1. Selection Mechanisms: Investigate optimal random selection algorithms and processes that ensure fairness, representativeness, and impartiality in the composition of sortition bodies. This may involve exploring cryptographic techniques, blockchain-based randomness and other novel approaches.

2. Decision-making Processes: Examine the most effective decision-making processes and deliberative methods for each sortition body. This may include studying consensus mechanisms, voting protocols and facilitation techniques that promote informed and balanced deliberation.

3. Term Lengths and Rotation: Assess optimal term lengths and rotation frequencies for members of panels, boards, and councils. This research should balance the need for continuity and institutional memory with the need for fresh perspectives and minimizing the risk of entrenched power dynamics.

4. Conflict Resolution: Develop mechanisms for resolving disputes or conflicts between sortition bodies and within the broader DAO. This may involve establishing clear escalation pathways, external arbitration or other methods of impartial adjudication.

5. Training and Support: Explore the most effective ways to prepare and support randomly selected members for their roles in the various sortition bodies. This may involve developing onboarding materials, ongoing training programs and mentorship structures.

6. Integration with Blockchain Technology: Investigate how these sortition governance structures can be best integrated with existing and emerging blockchain technologies, smart contracts and decentralized platforms. This may involve developing new protocols, standards or tools that facilitate efficient and secure implementation.

7. Evaluation and Metrics: Establish criteria and metrics for evaluating the performance and effectiveness of these sortition-based governance structures. This should include quantitative and qualitative measures of decision quality, representation, efficiency and overall satisfaction among DAO members.

8. Pilot Studies and Case Studies: Conduct pilot studies and case studies with existing or newly formed DAOs that are willing to experiment with the proposed sortition governance structures. These real-world implementations will provide invaluable insights into the practical challenges, successes and lessons learned.

9. Legal and Regulatory Frameworks: Examine the legal and regulatory implications of implementing these sortition governance structures within DAOs. This may involve exploring issues related to liability, jurisdiction and compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

10. Stakeholder Engagement: Engage with a diverse range of stakeholders, including DAO members, blockchain developers, political scientists, legal experts and other interested parties, to gather feedback and build consensus around the proposed governance structures.

Conclusion

Blockchain technology has been designed to be as anti-fragile as possible. All chains since Bitcoin have rightly obsessed over their vulnerability to 51% attacks whereby a malicious actor accrues enough power over transaction validation to dominate the process and insert invalid transactions in their favor effectively commandeering the chain and all the value it maintains. But no one has put this intellectual rigor into the people and organizations that run them – DAOs. This creates a systemic vulnerability. 

Sortition represents a promising avenue to enhance the democratic nature of DAO governance. By incorporating random representation, DAOs can address the weaknesses of traditional electoral politics, such as lack of representation, party politics, voter apathy, electoral corruption and media bias. Sortition fosters inclusivity, fairness, and the wisdom of the crowds while complementing the core values of crypto governance. It ensures that decisions are made by a diverse group of individuals, eliminating the influence of money or status. By adopting sortition, DAOs can reinforce their commitment to decentralized decision-making, where power lies with the community rather than a select few.

References

Bouricius, Terrill G. (2013) “Democracy Through Multi-Body Sortition: Athenian Lessons for the Modern Day,” Journal of Public. Deliberation: Vol. 9 : Iss. 1 , Article 11. Available at: https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss1/art11

The Keys to Democracy: Sortition as a New Model for Citizen Power by Maurice Pope (Author), Hugh Pope (Editor), Quentin Pope (Editor), Imprint Academic; 1st edition (March 7, 2023), ISBN-10: 1788360974

Flanigan, B., Gölz, P., Gupta, A. et al. Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies. Nature 596, 548–552 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03788-6