The thing is the lottery was only one aspect of the athenian republic, how laws were voted, how leaders were held highly accountable were also important corner

The thing is the lottery was only one aspect of the athenian republic, how laws were voted, how leaders were held highly accountable were also important corner stones. There appears to be a lot to like about the Athenian democratic process (again, not an expert). However, your argument about elections vs lotteries literally had only one thing to say about the Athenians which was "The Republic in Athens was based on the lottery and it lasted literally for centuries.". I find this a weak argument specifically because it's not really true (for the reasons stated above). After all, Athens the Republic (as a democratic process after the reforms of Salon, as compared to just Athens the city) was already 86 years old by the time the first lottery was in place. This reduces the power of the first part of the statement ("was based on the lottery"). How could it be based on the lottery if the lottery did not exist at the time the Republic was formed. Then, the lottery only lasted for 186 years (close to, but not quite "centuries"), but that too loses it's effectiveness as an argument because the US (based on elections) is about 227 years old (counting from the first Presidential election). So in the end, the argument (as presented, and specifically with regards to Athens), was something to the effect of "Elections are worse than the lottery. The Republic of Athens was based on a lottery. The Athenian lottery lasted for centuries. This should strengthen the initial point that lotteries are better than elections.". However, in analysis, the statement about Athens is not good evidence for that argument because the Athenian Republic was not based on a lottery, and while it did last for nearly 2 centuries, it still lasted for a shorter amount of time than the system the US is currently using.