Election by lottery

[Tahuti]

Thought experiment: Parliaments and other elected offices are now elected... by lottery. No longer the voters but fate decides who gets in parliament and who doesn't. Would it be a good?

In a lottery, no human bias is involved: Every party and candidate would have an equal probability of being chosen. Rethoric for votes and electoral campaigns are no longer relevant. Hunger for power would not necessarily be satisfied by political skills alone (which is distinct from policymaking). And because of the absence of electoral campaigns, there would be significantly less media influence in politics. Because the composition of parliament is less predictable and influencable, parliamentarians would be forced to work together.

Of the course, the downsides may be that parliaments are more prone to ignoring human factors, since these have arguably lesser influence on politics. Also, bad luck can fill a parliament full of incompetents.

I'm personally torn on this. The pros for me are that it pretty much culls the negative aspects of democracies. Though my reservation are that it risks taking the humanity from politics, which means a big deal for me.

 

[Colonel]

Thought experiment: Parliaments and other elected offices are now elected... by lottery. No longer the voters but fate decides who gets in parliament and who doesn't. Would it be a good?

In a lottery, no human bias is involved: Every party and candidate would have an equal probability of being chosen. Rethoric for votes and electoral campaigns are no longer relevant. Hunger for power would not necessarily be satisfied by political skills alone (which is distinct from policymaking). And because of the absence of electoral campaigns, there would be significantly less media influence in politics. Because the composition of parliament is less predictable and influencable, parliamentarians would be forced to work together.

Of the course, the downsides may be that parliaments are more prone to ignoring human factors, since these have arguably lesser influence on politics. Also, bad luck can fill a parliament full of incompetents.

I'm personally torn on this. The pros for me are that it pretty much culls the negative aspects of democracies. Though my reservation are that it risks taking the humanity from politics, which means a big deal for me.

Not be a detractor for a more direct (ish) democracy but the modern problems facing the world and the nation are simply far too complex to not require career politicians. I know some of them seem incompetent but honestly I really think that alot of that is just theater. For the most part I'd guess that a good majority of the political leadership is quite well educated, their personal motives are the negative.

 

[Zelig]

Not be a detractor for a more direct (ish) democracy but the modern problems facing the world and the nation are simply far too complex to not require career politicians.

Not if you had smarter politicians.

 

[Colonel]

Not if you had smarter politicians.

More then likely you would not get that from the population en-mass. In fact a good proportion of this lottery government would be made up by people too dumb to understand the many complexities asked of them.

 

[onejayhawk]

What you would do is empower the bureaucracy. There have been some satrical stories along this line. The constant thread is that someone is always in charge. If it is not the elected official, it is the unelected official. The same happens when you put too many obstuctions in front of a parliament.

J

 

[Tahuti]

If it is not the elected official, it is the unelected official.

I would not necessarily object to this as long as it isn't a shadowy figure.

 

[Zelig]

More then likely you would not get that from the population en-mass. In fact a good proportion of this lottery government would be made up by people too dumb to understand the many complexities asked of them.

So just like your current career politicians.

 

[Colonel]

So just like your current career politicians.

Honestly I don't believe that our politicians are dumb. I can clearly tell that most of politics we see on tv is simply a theater put on to present the illusion of government of the people. Sure there are some really dumb ones that come to mind, Palin or Bachmann. I trust their stupidity because I don't think anyone could act that well and consistently stay in character.

 

[Zelig]

Honestly I don't believe that our politicians are dumb. I can clearly tell that most of politics we see on tv is simply a theater put on to present the illusion of government of the people. Sure there are some really dumb ones that come to mind, Palin or Bachmann. I trust their stupidity because I don't think anyone could act that well and consistently stay in character.

You don't need to watch TV at all, just look at policy decisions and results.

 

[Colonel]

You don't need to watch TV at all, just look at policy decisions and results.

For the most part, policies made benefit someone, maybe not who it should but there is clearly a well thought out plan. Corruption in our system I accept as a price of doing business. Better to have corrupt competence that appears incompetent, then pure incompetence.

 

[onejayhawk]

I would not necessarily object to this as long as it isn't a shadowy figure.

I always found it interesting that bureaucracy means rule by desks (literally furniture with drawers).

J

 

[warpus]

The problem with politicians is that they're always busy with politics.

 

[Archbob]

You have to remember that people like Glenn Beck would be in your Lottery.

 

[classical_hero]

Not if you had smarter politicians.

Some times some of the smartest people make some of the dumbest decisions.

 

[tetley]

In the U.S., election by lottery wouldn't last very long. A military coup would take them them over. You need a leader who can rally people to their cause and get them to follow him/her--that's why you need statesmen who are properly elected. The U.S. would otherwise become a banana republic in short order, if they are not already now.

 

[Perfection]

I'd put my name down for everything.

 

[Borachio]

What makes you think politics isn't a lottery already?

I mean, I know they don't put everybody's name into a big hat and draw some out at random. But, in effect, that is what really happens.

 

[tetley]

One could argue that monarchy is a lottery, in that the circumstances in which you are born is luck of the draw. But I don't think that is what is meant here.

 

[Recon Rover]

Not be a detractor for a more direct (ish) democracy but the modern problems facing the world and the nation are simply far too complex to not require career politicians.

If career politician in the United States means one more person with a social science degree I think America is seriously doomed.

 

[Senethro]

One could argue that monarchy is a lottery, in that the circumstances in which you are born is luck of the draw. But I don't think that is what is meant here.

No, I think thats exactly what it is. Its yet another KG thread that goes "Democracy broken. Therefore, kings."

If you're not open to the idea of kings its because academia and the mainstream media have brainwashed you. Hes like a bizarro monarchist Dom3k with his one track mind.