This paper provides a framework for thinking about the debate between elections and sortition that moves beyond representativeness as the enabling criteria for democracy and its procedures. To that end, we are better off describing those who make de facto political decisions as “officials” or “rulers.” This critical move opens up the conditions to evaluate our relationship to political rulers as equals under the assumption that they will always enjoy more political power than non-office holders. On these terms, I argue that lottocracy better vindicates the requirements of social equality because we have an equal opportunity to make de facto political decisions and actually participate in ruling. Furthermore, during the time that we are not chosen as a lottocratic official, randomness ensures that lottocracy does not offend equal status because those who access the position do so out of chance, not out of a contest of superiority, which is actually constitutive of electoral systems. Finally, I suggest that scholars should pivot on the intrinsic – arguably democratic – value of randomness that lottocracy uniquely relies on. The fact that anyone could be making decisions that impact the way we live would arguably transform democratic society by giving us incentives to make sure everyone is prepared for the day they will take on this responsibility. Randomness might be the condition of possibility for enacting a society where we actually respect and treat each other as social equals.