It’s way too radical to implement on a dime. He talked about small scale experiments in other democracies - at schools, for an advisory committee on climate change, etc. I think that’s how a major change in how we select leaders would evolve.

I’m not saying I endorse this - first time I ever thought about it. I do like Adam Grant though. And I think he thinks things through, especially with something this radical. I don’t think I agree with all your concerns:

1). Perhaps, or perhaps not. There’s no reason why the full spectrum in Alabama wouldn’t be represented in a lottery of folks who can pass a basic civics test. I guess you’d have more far right folks than you’d have in Massachusetts, which is a democratic result - that’s the makeup of Bama and Mass. But - the result wouldn’t be determined by name recognition for a football coach, or who gets the most donors, who can rile a mob with grievance and scapegoats, etc. Makes it far less likely to have a Congress filled with Tubbervilles and AOCs.

2). I think this is the essence. Grant claims data from studies flat out refute this claim. Pure psychology - people who seek office are deeply impressed with themselves when they win, and so are much more likely to flaunt rules, and to believe their interests are the same as the entire electorates’. This is the entire reason to implement this - the claim that people gaining power (for a very defined period of time, then it expires, and the lottery picks someone new) through a lottery are not at all impressed with themselves, and look to the interests of the electorate. They know they need the guidance of the broader group’s interests. So, either Grant’s study is right, or not. Probably why you’d have to start very small with this.

3) kind of irrelevant. I tend to disagree with my dem friends on the EC, but I don’t think that’s at issue here. It’s not just the EC or gerrymandering killing the quality of our candidates. I’d set this issue aside as irrelevant. It’s more about how the world of campaigning has changed. 150 years ago, candidates often didn’t even campaign - other people touted them and self-promotion was kind of tacky. Even when they did, there were no TV cameras, no social media snippets taken out of context, all that. Essential point - the electorate rewards different qualities than it did before the age of TV and the internet. Maybe not the qualities that lead to great leadership.

4). My kneejerk - no. I think the idea is that the improved, more humble body politic formed by the new approach would be more responsible and less ideologically inflexible in selecting and confirming judges. At least for those not now chosen by elections.

Obviously it’s all a pipe dream - the constitution won’t be amended to allow for this. And I’m not sure about it - if you were moving in this direction, you’d start slow.


[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 08/22/2023 08:51AM]