Podcast Summary: ReThinking with Adam Grant

Episode: Taking politicians out of politics with Hélène Landemore
Date: February 10, 2026
Host: Adam Grant
Guest: Hélène Landemore, Political Scientist, Yale University

Episode Overview

In this thought-provoking episode, Adam Grant sits down with Hélène Landemore to explore her radical vision for the future of democracy: removing career politicians from legislatures and replacing them with randomly selected citizens. Drawing from her book, "Politics Without Politicians," Landemore lays out the case for what she calls “lot-based democracy” and citizen assemblies, arguing that while electoral politics may be broken, the core ideals of democracy are not. Together, Grant and Landemore discuss the philosophical roots, practical mechanics, psychological assumptions, and real-world experiments around this bold idea.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Case for Citizen Assemblies Over Elected Politicians

• Landemore’s Thesis: Electoral politics selects for a narrow class of people, often law-trained and power-seeking, while randomly selected citizen assemblies can represent a fuller, truer cross-section of society.
  • “In my ideal vision, yes, we are replacing elected officials with ordinary citizens for the purpose of legislation. And I understand it’s a leap, but that’s a leap the Greeks did first.” — Hélène Landemore [01:08]
• Real-world Experiments: Iceland’s constitutional process (2010), French Climate Convention (2019–20), and Ireland’s citizens’ assemblies show that large groups of ordinary citizens can responsibly propose and deliberate on laws.
  • “We can actually rewrite the constitution of a country involving nonprofessional politicians …and they did that on the basis of 950 randomly selected citizens.” — Landemore [02:54]
• Host Skepticism: Grant highlights the tension between professional expertise and lay participation, questioning if legal training is necessary for drafting laws.
  • Landemore rebuts: Elected officials themselves outsource much of the technical writing to experts and staff.

2. Human Nature, Trust, and Competence

• Skepticism about Ordinary Citizens: Many people fear that assemblies could be overtaken by “the extreme people in the population.”
  • “Ordinary people are statistically quite average and reasonable. They are engineers, nurses, Uber drivers, craftsmen, workers, students.” — Landemore [02:17]
• On Competence Requirements:
  • Grant suggests a basic civics test; Landemore responds that it’s important for democracy to trust people as they are, drawing parallels to historical exclusion via literacy tests.
  • “It’s at least as much about emotions, bonding, [and] creation of a common identity …for that you really don’t need any competence. You just need to show up as you are.” — Landemore [07:20]
• Power of Lived Experience: Including marginalized members (the homeless, elderly, etc.) changes the nature of deliberations for the better.

3. Democracy’s Core Assumptions and Debates

• Trust Dilemma: Grant and Landemore debate whether trust in ordinary citizens is essential to democracy or a risky gamble.
  • “Either we are committed to democracy …and we trust ordinary citizens, or …we are supporters of oligarchy ruled by the few and presumably the best.” — Landemore [11:11]
• Dangers of Electoral Selection: Grant discusses research suggesting elections attract individuals high in the “dark triad”—narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy
  • “We have an adverse selection problem …the narcissists, Machiavellians, and psychopaths are actually more likely to get elected…” — Grant [14:17]
  • Landemore: “The selection mechanism of elections …over samples for power-hungry people, narcissistic types, [and] corruptible people.” [14:49]

4. Leadership, Humility, and Group Dynamics

• Random Selection’s Psychological Benefits: Randomly selected groups exhibit more humility and collective responsibility; leadership becomes an act of service, not self-aggrandizement.
  • “Knowing that you are randomly assigned to make laws and to set policy, I think is a tremendous protective mechanism against selfishness.” — Grant [15:29]
  • Landemore describes real assembly dynamics: “People in these assemblies feel an enormous sense of duty and humility …there’s a sort of self-regulation to maintain the cohesion.” [16:29]

5. Resistance and Public Perceptions

• Landemore and Grant have both encountered polarized reactions, with many fearing 'mob rule,' lack of competence, or undemocratic outcomes.
  • “I had people leave the room when I talked about stuff like that…‘You’re trying to empower the ignorant masses. It’s dangerous.’” — Landemore [18:24]
• Grant distinguishes between executive (president) and legislative roles—random selection is best suited for large assemblies, not single positions.

6. Statistical Properties and the Jury Analogy

• Lotteries in Practice: For legitimacy, lottery processes need to be transparent and public—much like jury selection.
  • “If we are willing to let randomly selected jurors …determine the innocence or guilt of a person, why would we not extend that to …the work of politicians?” — Grant [22:45]
  • Landemore: “The jury as an institution is a core sort of democratic process. …It assumes you don’t need a particular kind of expertise to pass a moral judgment.” [23:01]

7. Practical Implementation and Challenges

• Logistical Hurdles: How can we ensure the legitimacy of lotteries?
  • Landemore suggests public, transparent procedures, even using simple paper draws for maximal openness [26:48].
  • “We need to have a lottery to choose the people who oversee the integrity of the lottery.” — Grant [27:28]

8. The Urgency of Reform

• Consequences of Inaction:
  • “If you don’t open democracy consciously, structurally, the mob will break it open for you.” — Landemore, quoting her January 6, 2021 tweet [27:39]
  • Citing the French yellow vest movement, Landemore advocates for structural opening of democracy to prevent destructive upheaval.

9. Conditions for Effective Deliberative Democracy

• What Makes an Assembly Work?
  • Diverse and representative sample
  • Sufficient time for deep discussion
  • Ongoing expert support—but support that’s advisory, not authoritative
  • Learning curve for both citizens and experts, involving humility and adaptation
  • “You need time…a sample that’s diverse and representative…expert support.” — Landemore [29:46]

10. Rapid-Fire (Lightning Round)

• Worst current idea about fixing democracy?
  • “That we need less of it…books about 10% less democracy…introduce literacy tests.” — Landemore [34:08]
• Best advice for US Congress?
  • “Support the exploration of lot-based democracy…Follow the example of Irish politicians.” [34:49]
• Dinner party guests for a democracy discussion:
  • Hume, Condorcet, Tocqueville, Manon, maybe Jefferson. “No American Founding Fathers…too elitist.” [36:03, 36:28]
• Changed mind recently:
  • Landemore now sees more merit in considering the challenge of scale in applying citizen assemblies to large, diverse countries. [38:36]

11. Implementing Change

• How to Persuade Politicians to Relinquish Power:
  • Gradual, bottom-up multiplication of citizens’ assemblies showing tangible benefits, until politicians see legitimacy gains outweigh power losses.
  • “You’re going to lose power, but you’re going to gain in legitimacy. And that’s the deal.” — Landemore quoting Belgian politician Magaly Plovie [41:45]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On ‘trusting the people’:
  • “You have to trust people first. You have to empower them with the capacity of choosing their own fate. And then they will measure up and then they will educate themselves.” — Hélène Landemore [11:11]
• On why random selection is not ‘mob rule’:
  • “Democracy by lot is not a form of mob rule. …It’s deliberative.” — Landemore [20:10]
• On adverse selection in electoral politics:
  • “…The narcissists, Machiavellians, and psychopaths are actually more likely to get elected in a system where we vote than if we draw a random sample via lottery.” — Adam Grant [14:17]
• On the humility conferred by random selection:
  • “They feel like, well, I didn’t come here because I deserved it or because I’m special, so I’d better measure up.” — Landemore [16:29]
• On US constitutional stagnation:
  • “We’re so constrained by the gilded cage of the American Constitution that it’s hard to meet the needs and desires of the current population.” — Landemore [36:28]
• On the urgency of opening democracy:
  • “If you don’t open democracy consciously, structurally, the mob will break it open for you.” — Landemore [27:39]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:08] — Landemore outlines her vision for replacing elected officials with randomly selected citizens.
• [02:54] — The Icelandic constitutional process inspires Landemore's thinking.
• [04:34] — Why don't we need mostly lawyers in Congress? Questioning expertise requirements.
• [07:20] — On the role of emotions and social fabric in citizen assemblies.
• [11:11] — The philosophical divide: Trust in people versus technocracy/oligarchy.
• [14:17] — Adverse selection problem in elections: evidence from psychology.
• [16:29] — Effects of random assignment on humility and duty.
• [18:24] — Backlash: Fears of ‘empowering the ignorant masses’.
• [22:45] — Grant draws an analogy to jury service.
• [26:48] — How to ensure lottery legitimacy.
• [27:39] — Quoting Landemore’s tweet on opening democracy or facing mob backlash.
• [29:46] — Landemore’s list of what makes citizen assemblies work.
• [34:08] — Lightning round: Worst and best current ideas about democracy.
• [36:28] — Landemore on the challenges created by the US Constitution.
• [41:45] — Belgian politician on losing power vs. gaining legitimacy.

Conclusion

This conversation spotlights a bold vision for repairing democracy that is grounded in deep philosophical reflection, rigorous social science, and practical experimentation. Landemore and Grant tackle common objections with empathy and evidence, making a compelling case for continued experimentation with citizen assemblies. They acknowledge the inertia and resistance such change faces, but end on a note of cautious optimism, challenging listeners to rethink their own faith in ordinary people—and the structures that best give expression to democracy’s promise.