In question is Issue #534, "Too Few Cooks in the Kitchen," which is about a shortage of candidates who want to run for election to office.
I selected option 3, which has text as follows:
3. "Nobody wants to run for office because nobody wants to be in the government," replies your mother as she tries to make dinner plans with you. "Think about it. When was the last time someone who actually presented a challenge ran against you? When I was raising you and your siblings, I'd settle who got to play with the toys by drawing straws, and I think we can use the same approach. People from all over @@NAME@@ could be chosen at random to fill a government office for a fixed term. As an added bonus, it would root out the corrupt career politicians and opportunists, since they couldn't run for office anymore. Sure, these new people aren't as qualified, but fair's fair, right?"
The result of this, among other things, was a massive drop in Political Freedoms (which seems odd - some drop yes, but this felt unreasonable), but more importantly, it installed both the Sortition and Autocracy policies, which are inherently contradictory. Sortition is 100% correct - that is what this is. Autocracy is completely inaccurate. Autocracy by definition means one person has absolute power, which is not in any way what Sortition allows. In fact, Sortition goes back to ancient Athens, where it was considered one of the most important keystones of democracy, since it meant office holders weren't beholden to political parties, or to campaign promises made for special interests. It does not remove power from the people - just randomizes the method by which it is distributed. Also, it doesn't have anything to do with removing peoples' right to vote on laws, budgets, or anything else. It just means that candidates for office are randomly distributed in to those offices.
My suggestion would be that the Autocracy flag ought to be removed from this. Sortition and Autocracy are inherently contradictory concepts.