3 ms·
Well, 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 whethe
by thaumasiotes 1y ago
Well, 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]