12 ms·
I always chuckle (or squirm) when someone suggests “picking a random person to be the president” rather than our current broken campaigning system. Far better
by hammock 1y ago
I always chuckle (or squirm) when someone suggests “picking a random person to be the president” rather than our current broken campaigning system.
Far better than that option, would be for a random family to inherit that power forever, than for a different random family be chosen every 4 years. Because at least then the “royal” family has some accountability to govern for long-term success, lest their descendants be dragged into the street and hung by an unhappy mob with pitchforks.
- thaumasiotes 1y agoWell, your way means there's a succession unpredictably every ~20 years instead of predictably every 4. Whether that's a point for or against depends on whether you think policy thrashing every 4 years is a good idea.
- hammock 1y agoThe generational succession is VASTLY more predictable than a random one, considering the successor comes from the same house and has literally spent his entire life being groomed and prepared to rule.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- wredcoll 1y agoWe, humanity, have literally ALREADY TRIED THIS. This isn't some kind of super hypothetical what-if scenario. We have historical records. It went poorly.
- hammock 1y agoWe tried the random thing?
- TheCoelacanth 1y agoIt's not unheard of[1]. Ancient Athens used random selection for many offices and some Italian city-states like Venice and Florence incorporated elements of randomness. A lot of historians think that it did help a lot in reigning in corruption and making it harder for foreign powers to influence their politics. I think randomly selecting a president is probably a bad idea but randomly selecting a parliament and then having them elect a prime minister from within that group would work well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
- lostlogin 1y ago> The generational succession is VASTLY more predictable than a random one Is it? Plenty of wars have been fought over succession. Imagine a system whereby you could pole everyone and get a dud leader removed, rather than keep them until they die. There have been a fair few elections with orderly transitions between governments.
- hammock 1y agoWhat counterexamples do we have of the random method, to compare? I can’t think of when it’s been tried by a consenting people
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lostlogin 1y ago> lest their descendants be dragged into the street and hung by an unhappy mob with pitchforks. The idea that a monarchy sees itself as accountable to the people is hilarious. They have a record of ruling with an iron fist and killing opposition.
- hammock 1y agoIt’s hard to grasp in a post-Westphalian world but killing opposition and governing with accountability to the people were not always considered opposing ideas. Loyalty to the king was a two-way street, noblesse oblige, etc
- lostlogin 1y agoSo if we are after accountability, in what way is a monarchy superior to a democracy?
- hammock 1y agoI wasn’t making that argument. I’m rather inclined to Jefferson’s ideas (himself a severe anti-monarchist) of promoting individual human dignity and capability; the critical role of moral virtue and education; “small republics” and self-government: “ When people witnessed our first struggles in the war of independence, they little calculated, more than we did, on the rapid growth and prosperity of this country; on the practical demonstration it was about to exhibit, of the happy truth that man is capable of self-government, and only rendered otherwise by the moral degradation designedly superinduced on him by the wicked acts of his tyrants.”
- lostlogin 1y agoThanks for that quote. It almost sounds Libertarian.