Daniel Baron of the Institute of Sociology, RWTH Aachen University introduces his article, The Power of the Lot: Are People Obliged to Participate in Political Lotteries? as follows:
While empirical research in the field of aleatoric democracy usually focuses on the deliberative outcomes of these procedures (Fishkin & Luskin 1999; Fishkin et al. 2000), theoretical approaches mainly ask whether political lotteries, compared to traditional ways of recruiting political personnel (esp. elections), are just or not (Stone 2007, 2009). Further discussions broach the subjects of political representation, equality or input- and output-legitimacy (Buchstein 2009a). Down to the present day, a key question to ask when focusing the problem of legitimacy of aleatoric democracy has been most widely ignored: whether laypersons chosen by lot should be compelled to participate in the committee where they have gained a seat, or whether sortition should be founded on the principle of voluntariness.
Baron opposes obligatory political service, and I could not find a coherent argument in favor of obligation in the paper. To my mind, obligating service is a very poor idea. Obligatory voting is silly, but then voting is silly anyway so not much harm is done. Obligatory political service in a high-powered position, on the other hand, is destructive both to the motivation of the allotted and to the prestige of the institution and thus is potentially of grave consequences.
In any case, getting high participation rates should be easy if the compensation (in material and honorific terms) is high enough, so what is the point of having the service mandatory? Is the objective saving some money? The same question arises in the context of jury service – the nominal obligatory nature of jury service (which is mostly a sham anyway, at least in the U.S.) would be completely unnecessary if the jurors were paid fairly and were treated with respect.