The contemporary debate surrounding the use of sortition (political lotteries) sometimes tends to forget that it takes place in a specific institutional context. Indeed, the discussion usually tries to reveal an immanent nature in the draw. Among the authors who have addressed this issue, two poles can be identified: those who focus on the neutralizing nature of luck in politics and those who insist on its equalizing dimension. Both positions obscure the fact that the neutralizing or egalitarian outcomes of sortition depend on specific institutional arrangements. Adopting a philosophical, historical and sociological perspective, this article analyzes lotteries in politics focusing on both its essence and effects. An overview of different historical experiences helps to illustrate that the potential of sortition depends mainly on the political practice in which it operates. Subsequently, a comparison of the election and the draw is used to demonstrate the problematic nature of the idea of the essence of these processes and to demonstrate the importance of thinking in terms of potentiality and not of nature.