3 ms·

>Sure but at that point isn't it better to have a lottery to establish who gets to be POTUS instead of going through the motions of campaign expenses and consta

>Sure but at that point isn't it better to have a lottery to establish who gets to be POTUS instead of going through the motions of campaign expenses and constant media coverage just to shove down people's throats the idea that POTUS is much better and more qualified of a person than all the other citizens combined? The point is to find a person that is qualified and represents the will of the people. Electing a president is a tradeoff between efficiency and accuracy. A lottery would be much more efficient, but much less accurate in finding the "best" candidate for president. Elections are less efficient, but better than a lottery at choosing a competent and representative candidate. >You just described survivorship bias: Movie with Daniel Day Lewis is better because Daniel Day Lewis is in it. That's not survivorship bias. I fully admit that other actors could be better, and I'd imagine that many others do also. The point I'm making is that I have much more data on Daniel Day Lewis than I do on any random actor. As such, a rational individual will take that into account when deciding on a movie. It's random chance that Daniel is famous. However, now that he's famous, we know much more about what he brings to a movie than most other actors. It would be irrational to ignore that info, regardless of how we got it.

JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago
> > The point is to find a person that is qualified and represents the will of the people. Electing a president is a tradeoff between efficiency and accuracy. A lottery would be much more efficient, but much less accurate in finding the "best" candidate for president. Elections are less efficient, but better than a lottery at choosing a competent and representative candidate. The random winner of the lottery would try just as hard to follow the will of the people in order to be popular and convince the population to postpone the next lottery as much as they possibly can and thus stay in power. > > It's random chance that Daniel is famous. However, now that he's famous, we know much more about what he brings to a movie than most other actors. It would be irrational to ignore that info, regardless of how we got it. Or maybe it's not about the acting, but the budget allocated for promotion and shoving the movie down people's throats, see the huge flop of By the Sea (2015) starring Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt who were also directors and producers. Only 10 million as the budget, which pales compared to the big studios mega-budget movies they ofter star in. And so with zero promotion Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are just regular actors and nobody went to see them. Even their fans do not know of this movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_the_Sea_(2015_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_the_Sea_(2015_film) Similarly the election circus and the huge media coverage it generates are the promotional service for the would be POTUS, shoving him down people's throats and convincing the population that he's the most qualified. > > It's random chance that Daniel is famous. However, now that he's famous, we know much more about what he brings to a movie than most other actors. It would be irrational to ignore that info, regardless of how we got it. You say information, for me it's promotion. Promotion is the opposite of information. If I were to give examples It's always the dollar amount and human-hours spent on the promotion which matters.
jemmyw 4y ago
Actually a lottery system would be way more representative. The chances of a wealthy politician being chosen by random lottery are pretty small. A random person as president every term, that sounds like a better system to me, a person more likely in touch with the everyday problems and with far less political motivation. Plenty of reasons it wouldn't work like immediate corruption by companies wanting their own legislation by promising random person money and jobs after their term. Not necessarily worse than the corruption we have now. Interesting idea nonetheless.
- _yb2s 4y ago
  Leadership is challenging, and a very small percentage of the population have good leadership skills. A random person almost certainly won’t, and would be unable to do the job, whereas virtually every candidate in an election has already had a long career as an effective leader.
- antasvara 4y ago
  There are certainly merits to a lottery system. There are also merits to an electoral system. The larger point I'm making is that choosing a leader is perfectly rational, unlike the original comment implied.

JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago

> > The point is to find a person that is qualified and represents the will of the people. Electing a president is a tradeoff between efficiency and accuracy. A lottery would be much more efficient, but much less accurate in finding the "best" candidate for president. Elections are less efficient, but better than a lottery at choosing a competent and representative candidate. The random winner of the lottery would try just as hard to follow the will of the people in order to be popular and convince the population to postpone the next lottery as much as they possibly can and thus stay in power. > > It's random chance that Daniel is famous. However, now that he's famous, we know much more about what he brings to a movie than most other actors. It would be irrational to ignore that info, regardless of how we got it. Or maybe it's not about the acting, but the budget allocated for promotion and shoving the movie down people's throats, see the huge flop of By the Sea (2015) starring Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt who were also directors and producers. Only 10 million as the budget, which pales compared to the big studios mega-budget movies they ofter star in. And so with zero promotion Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are just regular actors and nobody went to see them. Even their fans do not know of this movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_the_Sea_(2015_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_the_Sea_(2015_film) Similarly the election circus and the huge media coverage it generates are the promotional service for the would be POTUS, shoving him down people's throats and convincing the population that he's the most qualified. > > It's random chance that Daniel is famous. However, now that he's famous, we know much more about what he brings to a movie than most other actors. It would be irrational to ignore that info, regardless of how we got it. You say information, for me it's promotion. Promotion is the opposite of information. If I were to give examples It's always the dollar amount and human-hours spent on the promotion which matters.

jemmyw 4y ago

Actually a lottery system would be way more representative. The chances of a wealthy politician being chosen by random lottery are pretty small. A random person as president every term, that sounds like a better system to me, a person more likely in touch with the everyday problems and with far less political motivation. Plenty of reasons it wouldn't work like immediate corruption by companies wanting their own legislation by promising random person money and jobs after their term. Not necessarily worse than the corruption we have now. Interesting idea nonetheless.

_yb2s 4y ago
Leadership is challenging, and a very small percentage of the population have good leadership skills. A random person almost certainly won’t, and would be unable to do the job, whereas virtually every candidate in an election has already had a long career as an effective leader.
antasvara 4y ago
There are certainly merits to a lottery system. There are also merits to an electoral system. The larger point I'm making is that choosing a leader is perfectly rational, unlike the original comment implied.