Jacobin⁠60%

Could Democracy by Lottery Fix a Broken System? ⁠81%

By Anand Gopal⁠0% Ben Burgis⁠73%

6/30/2026, 10:45:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Anecdotal, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 35.6% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 499 faulty-reasoning hits from 135 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (4,062 of 21,174 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.80% of the article peer group.

Across the world, it appears democracy is in retreat. 
Democratic institutions are degrading, voter turnout is plummeting, party membership is cratering, and citizens increasingly feel shut out of the decisions that govern their lives. 
Even in the healthiest capitalist democracies, elites wield outsize influence over the political process. 
One possible answer is buried in democracy’s own past. 
Long before modern republics settled on elections as the default instrument of self-governance, ancient Athenians used a different method: sortition, the random selection of ordinary citizens to deliberate and decide on policy. 
Legislative agenda setters, council members, and most other officeholders were chosen entirely by lot. 
In what follows, Jacobin contributors Anand Gopal and Ben Burgis debate the idea and what it would take to achieve a truly democratic society. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 2.6%Jacobin: 5.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Anand Gopal: 1.7%Jacobin: 0.4%Anchoring Bias6.7%This article: 6.7%Anand Gopal: 12.2%Jacobin: 2.6%Availability Heuristic6.7%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.7%Anand Gopal: 16.7%Jacobin: 6.5%Framing Effect23.7%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.7%Anand Gopal: 1.7%Jacobin: 0.3%Status Quo Bias6.7%This article: 6.7%Anand Gopal: 1.7%Jacobin: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.3%Anand Gopal: 6.7%Jacobin: 1.8%Pessimism Bias16.3%This article: 35.6%Anand Gopal: 30.4%Jacobin: 7.9%Negativity Bias35.6%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 18.5%Anand Gopal: 4.6%Jacobin: 0.8%Recency Bias18.5%This article: 23.7%Anand Gopal: 5.9%Jacobin: 0.4%Primacy Effect23.7%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.7%Anand Gopal: 5.9%Jacobin: 3.2%Appeal to Authority23.7%This article: 5.9%Anand Gopal: 3.0%Jacobin: 2.7%False Dilemma5.9%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 35.6%Anand Gopal: 26.7%Jacobin: 8.1%Hasty Generalization35.6%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 17.8%Anand Gopal: 4.4%Jacobin: 1.7%Begging the Question17.8%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 6.7%Anand Gopal: 9.3%Jacobin: 0.2%Appeal to Nature6.7%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 25.2%Anand Gopal: 6.3%Jacobin: 2.5%Anecdotal25.2%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 20.7%Anand Gopal: 5.2%Jacobin: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)20.7%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.7%Anand Gopal: 1.7%Jacobin: 1.4%Unattributed Quote6.7%This article: 23.7%Anand Gopal: 5.9%Jacobin: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection23.7%This article: 24.4%Anand Gopal: 6.1%Jacobin: 11.3%Biased Writer Voice24.4%This article: 6.7%Anand Gopal: 1.7%Jacobin: 3.3%Indoctrination6.7%This article: 10.4%Anand Gopal: 12.2%Jacobin: 7.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Anand Gopal: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 17.8%Anand Gopal: 4.4%Jacobin: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…17.8%

135 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.