3 ms·
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 perso
by 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 agoLeadership 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 agoThere 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.