August 2025
    M T W T F S S
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    25262728293031

    Could Ditching Elections Save Democracy? A new book makes the case for replacing them with a system of government based on random selection.

    by ddgr815

    11 Comments

    1. JeffreyPetersen on

      Man, it would be great if the idiot down the street who huffs glue while burning tires in his front yard got to randomly be my Senator. I’m sure he’s immune to corruption and knows a great deal about Constitutional law and national governance.

    2. OnTheMidnightRun on

      Well sure, and I once knew a gal who made the case that Trump was bringing magical healing beds from Planet Arcturia, and he was going to save us from Big Pharma with the alien technology hidden by the Global Elitists in Area 51.

      Some cases fall apart right at the concept level.

    3. iamamuttonhead on

      Guess I’ll need to get this book since I’ve been boring friends and family with my ideas for lottocracy for decades.

    4. wouldn’t monarchy be a better system then?

      if we are doing away with democracy in favor of random individuals, why not random individuals who are trained from birth and whose welfare is intrinsically tied to the welfare of the nation?

    5. If you guys want a punching bag, I do genuinely think this is a decent idea. Look up [Random Ballot Elections](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_ballot) – the *only* election method that is immune to strategizing (that is, where it is *always* in the best interest of a voter to vote honestly) or gerrymandering and isn’t somehow a secret dictatorship (see the Archer Impossibility theorem).

      I personally think a random ballot system is also preferable because people can vote for someone else. This may seem counterintuitive, but I assume most people don’t actually want to work in government. Randomly forcing them to serve can sort of work, but I think allowing them to pass on the responsibility isn’t a terrible idea. Random ballot basically does this, as someone could always vote for themself instead if they do want to serve.

      I don’t think concerns about the “skill” of the politicians is a serious issue. There are plenty of historical examples of somewhat random people suddenly finding themselves in positions of higher power than they expected, and it typically doesn’t go that badly (certainly no worse that your typical corrupt politician).

      The main drawback I personally forsee is the random nature of the election itself – how can you guarantee that the random drawing actually was random? I can’t think of a particularly simple method that people won’t inevitably question.

    6. Sortition dates back to Greek democracies. Of course, the people that could be picked was much smaller than “everyone”.  Some philosophers believed that elections were inherently biased because they could be gamed by popularity, and less by representation.

      It’d be a hard, hard sell.

    7. There are lots of ways to run a system that incorporates random selection that is more than just “every single person’s name in a big hat”. One example is where someone has to declare their interest and collect enough signatures to get access to be in the lottery. Not a crazy number of signatures, but enough to show the candidate is serious and there are other people who will vouch for them. Another is you select a large number of people at random, and then those people elect one person from among themselves. Lots of other flavors.

    8. Possible-Line572 on

      This sounds like a terrible idea until you remember that the current occupant of the White House is about as dumb and venal and narcissistic and corrupt as humans can get. Just an utterly broken individual. I don’t particularly like my neighbor, but I sure as hell trust him more than I do the President.

    9. Mudders_Milk_Man on

      The writer sounds like one of those brilliant folks who watch superhero movies and decide “You know… The Joker and Thanos were right…”

    Leave A Reply