Not sure you can do it mathematically/statistically, or at least you can't guarantee that, and I think that's part of the point of the critique. What's better

Not sure you can do it mathematically/statistically, or at least you can't guarantee that, and I think that's part of the point of the critique. What's better is to explicitly justify the reasons behind why the algorithm was written/used, surface the assumptions, and periodically/regularly challenge those assumptions to see if they are still true. For example, a bunch of like-minded settlers settle a new geographical area, and then make governmental decisions via some fair consensus algorithm among the people in the government. The surrounding population gets more diverse. The government continues to make decisions the same way it always has, using the same people. The algorithm is sound, but the underlying assumption (that the algorithm/government fairly represents the surrounding population) has become wrong over time.