Applying an ancient solution to a modern problem.
A baffling feature of ancient Athenian democracy—the first of its kind, on which the foundations of America are modeled—is the practice of sortition. Sortition is the selection of government officials by random lottery from a pool of eligible candidates. Not only did Athenians choose their champions at random, but this method was preferred by the people to elections. At first glance, this practice seems entirely antithetical to democracy but these fathers of western governance believed that sortition reduced the influence of special interest groups, political parties, and wealthy charismatic elites. (Note: Athenians were always on guard against would-be tyrants who would usurp their new democracy. Ask me about the practice of ostracism next time you see me at happy hour.) Athenians also believed that sortition forced all Athenian men to be engaged in the affairs of the polis, for any of the eligible might be chosen to lead it. Above all else, Athenians preferred sortition to elections because it left room for the divine to weigh in.
Contemplating Ancient Greece is a fun exercise, but as a fundraiser in 2025, I was even more baffled to bump into the practice of sortition in the modern age of grant-making. It was an afternoon familiar to all fundraisers: gathering IRS determination letters, writing 3000-character impact statements, double- and triple-checking submission guidelines. On behalf of a local charity for which I volunteer, I submitted a worthy grant application to a local grant-maker for an escalating local need. The merits of the program and the significant impact on a shoe-string budget made a compelling case. However, within a few hours, I was notified that our application would not proceed this cycle because the grant-maker had chosen twenty applicants for review from the pool of eligible candidates . . . at random.
Did this grant-maker employ sortition for the same reasons as the ancient Greeks? To prevent corruption, level the playing field, or leave room for the divine? More likely than giving it to God, our modern grant-maker is using sortition as a secular, rational tool to create a more equitable, efficient selection process in the competitive world of philanthropy. Is merit-based selection being erased in the name of equity and ease? Let’s examine . . .
Random lottery gives small grassroots organizations with no name recognition and limited networks but compelling projects a chance to be considered. The biases which larger organizations spend much time, effort, and money to weave into the unconscious through the sorcery of public relations and branding are thwarted. In keeping with the ancient Greeks, the influence of the wealthy charismatic elites is reduced.
Some grant programs receive thousands of applications each cycle, making a comprehensive review of each one impossible. By randomly selecting a small sample of applicants for review, the grant-maker’s workload is eased and they can give more attention to each of the chosen applications. I have yet to hear of any organization in the philanthropic world, grantee or grant-maker, who is not running on a lean team with more work to do than hands.
Sortition, in its ancient way, is disrupting fundraising in a new kind of way. Grant awards often favor organizations that build strong existing relationships with the grant-maker, or that have a proven track record of receiving funding. This is exactly why the cost to acquire new donors is significantly higher than the cost to retain your existing donors. Sortition purposely disrupts relationships, allowing for new organizations to be discovered and funded rather than discounted in favor of known quantities.
Rather than mismanagement, sortition could actually be a good practice for grant-makers who have the primary goal of challenging power dynamics, minimizing time spent weeding through large volumes of applicants, and discovering innovative, higher-risk projects that might be otherwise overlooked. Sortition should be left in the archives of history if the grant-maker’s goal is to fund organizations with a track record of success, invest in issue areas which require an expert to evaluate programs, or build strong long-term relationships with a core group of grantees.
Ultimately, sortition can never replace due diligence. At its best, sortition should be used as a complementary tool to an existing selection process. For example, a grant-maker could use sortition to narrow in on a pool of eligible applicants before doing a merit-based review. Top candidates would then undergo due diligence before grants are awarded. This blended approach of the traditional and the new (or rather, the ancient) captures the benefits of both methods: this grant-maker would see unfamiliar grassroots projects rise to the top of the stack, spend less time on the stack, and still invest in the most deserving organizations.
As for my rejected grant, I’ll be raising my odds by submitting again next cycle (and all the ones after that) until my application is considered on its merits. Where relationships may fail us fundraisers, persistence never will!
