Government by Lottery!

[Kilarin]

In another thread we were discussing women in leadership. The topic bent around to how leadership positions in a democracy, via natural selection, automatically filter for certain personality types. Roid suggested that perhaps it would be possible to come up with a different society/government that did not filter for aggressive, power hungry people in positions of leadership.

I've been thinking about that a lot. I'm afraid it's a very difficult question, at least, assuming you want something that resembles a democracy. The problem is that in a democracy, there are (at least) two inherent filters that affect what kind of people you get as leaders.

1: By definition, the people who want to be leaders in a democracy must compete for the peoples votes. That competition will automatically filter for aggressive types.

2: Since leadership positions, again, pretty much by definition, are positions of power, you have a built in filter that selects for the kind of people who like power.

It's very true that we get good people in democratic governments now and then. People who are really more interested in the good of society then in themselves and their own power. BUT, I think they are the exception, and even those HAD to be aggressive personalities or they could not have fought their way past all of the others who only wanted the position for the power.

In a democracy, government positions automatically filter for some of the people who are absolutely the worst type to have in those positions. The more powerful and important the position, the more true this is.

BUT!!!! I've come up with a twisted and impractical method of appointing leaders that MIGHT be able to eliminate this problem without reverting to some kind of monarchy with all of the built in problems that contains.

GOVERNMENT BY LOTTERY!

Seriously though. If you assume that the kind of people who end up in power in a democracy (at least in the latter stages of a democracy) are exactly the WORST kind of people to defend the rights of the populous, then wouldn't we be better off trying our luck with random chance?

Consider. Once every 4 years we pull the name of a random citizen, and that person, no matter what their education, gender, race, or political background, is drafted to be president. They don't have a choice to turn it down. One of the secret services jobs will now be to keep the president from getting away. Four years later they are dismissed back to life as an ordinary citizen with a nice bit of pocket change to thank them for their service to their country.

Every two years we have a lotto to draft senators and representatives. We might choose to reduce the term of senators to 4 years, since they no longer have any choice in the matter.

The entire top level of our government would be run by random citizens. Now, obviously, with a random lottery, we will get some idiots, and some crooks in important positions. But think about it for a moment. We have idiots and crooks in important positions right now! Lots of them, unfortunately. With a lottery, we might get FEWER idiots and crooks!!!!! And with a lottery, we MIGHT actually get people in office who are more interested in the state of the country than in the future of their political career. They don't HAVE a future political career, so they might as well try and keep things running as well as possible for when they get out.

Now, I'm not entirely serious about this, it's awfully silly. But I'm not entirely kidding either. I think there may just be a germ of truth somewhere in this idea.

[Cuda68]

I would strongly disagree with this idea. A leader of a nation needs a higher education to understand the goings on of the world and the consequences of a nations actions. Although it does have merit, it would keep big business further away from politics than they are now. Corporations are killing this country by influencing the government with money through lobbyists for the sole purpose of greed. The government should be about the welfare of the people. So again, it does have merit.

[Testiculese]

I strongly strongly disagree with this at it's core. Unless you limit the lottery by an IQ threshold or some sort of educational benchmark, there's no way that some McDonald's worker is going to grasp any of what's needed to run the country. This has already been proven with Bush.

Other than that, yes, it would be a better system than we have now. The people who would do the most good for this country don't want the job, or aren't aggressive, arrogant, deceitful or spiteful enough to win.

The people in power now...while some might be dumb, they are a small minority. I'm talking about Congress/Reps/Senate, etc. They are not dumb, they are evil. They make policies that you *think* are dumb, but when you follow the money trail, they are not dumb at all, just self/friend-serving.

[CUDA]

Politicians are paid relatively little in this country, The Presidents base salary is only $250K a year. Senators and congressmen even less. thats why lobbists do so well. we should pay the President of this nation well. say 10 -20 mill a year, you would attract the higher end of business men clamoring for the position that way. face it election campaigns are nothing but a highly visible job interview. then you out law ALL pac's and lobby's to help control some of the legal corruption that our government allows and \"maybe\" we will have more of a chance

[Foil]

Interesting and somewhat entertaining proposition.

But I have to agree with these guys.

For this to be a good idea, the \"distribution of good/qualified people\" would have to be better in the general population than in government positions. We certainly have some whackos in government, but I'm not sure it's any better in the general population.

Also, it would not only significantly increase the chances of ending up with someone on the worst end of the scale, but it would turn the job of President/Senator/Congress from one of responsibility into one of privilege.

The democratic system in the U.S. may tend to elect some not-so-great people, but at least we haven't had any complete psychos.

[Dakatsu]

I think if we were to have like twenty candidates chosen by lottery that the people could vote on, and implement instant run-off voting, then we would be talking!

[Jeff250]

They don't have a choice to turn it down. One of the secret services jobs will now be to keep the president from getting away.

When we say "getting away," the language makes it obvious, but how will we in general decide if the President is doing is job correctly? E.g. if he is "getting away" or just vacationing? And more importantly, who will decide this? You've come up with a way to decide the President, but now how will we decide who will overlook the President? You've just postponed the problem.

On a more serious note, the founding fathers did a decent job of creating a system where politicians' selfish ambitions actually must overlap with our nation's good (usually). It often turns a bad thing into a good thing. This is something we would forfeit by going with a random lottery system in order to select someone with no political ambition or any ambition.

[Spidey]

Well I guess if you threw away the constitution & the bill of rights…………….

It would prolly still be a bad idea.

[Ford Prefect]

I think the best thing to do is search for the person who least wants the job and draft them. They probably understand what the job entails and want nothing to do with it which makes them the Ideal Candidate.

Not my idea, I stole it from Douglas Adams in the Hitch-hiker's guide to the Galaxy series.

[roid]

I think if we were to have like twenty candidates chosen by lottery that the people could vote on, and implement instant run-off voting, then we would be talking!

This is a good improvement to KILARIN's idea, it allows the worst disadvantages of KILARIN's idea to be bypassed (ie: certifiable retards behind the wheel), while also adding in a slight possability of the people we are trying to keep out - seeping back in momentarily (ie: what if one of those 20 ppl was some electioneer like Carl Rove? He'd no doubt get the job, but the problem is that his skills are better suited for getting the job (ie: for someone else) than actually performing the job)

So it's good, it knocks the sharp corners (good and bad) off KILARIN's idea while still leaving the base idea intact.


Perhaps what the idea is essentially saying is that it would be a more interesting idea to RANDOMLY select primary candidates from the population, and then refine the selection from there.

This way you can get a true "cream of the crop" situation. It relies on the assumption that most of the creme is NOT corrupt. That's the assumption we're going with here - that there are creamy people who would be awesome for the job out there - but they arn't in the corrupt inner circles needed as a prerequisite to even bother campaigning for president, so we never get them. All we ever get currently is the corrupt cream.
I think it's a valid assumption. Half the population are dumber than the average person - and some of the cream of the crop are selfish. But i'm willing to bet that most of the cream of the crop ARN'T selfish.

Mind you - will the dumbest people really be weeded out by the election process? Bush campaigned on a "proud C student" base and was successful. But perhaps this could just be seen as a voter protest against the current system, and thus in the new system people will not feel they have to protest with their vote like that.

(edited: replaced foil with KILARIN, oops)

[roid]

regarding the OP


you have to change the nature of society, of culture. It'll probabaly boil down to core questions such as "why do people WANT power?"

It'd be a huge cultural shift, essentially like a society where water is a scarce - to going to one where water is free. Suddenly - the people who used to control and influence society be their natural talent for controlling and protecting the sources of water (probably through brute force) - are totally powerless. And their talents no longer make them the "best suited for the job", as their job is now obsolete.

1: By definition, the people who want to be leaders in a democracy must compete for the peoples votes. That competition will automatically filter for aggressive types.

This is only because people in that society are ok with that aggression. What if society wasn't ok with it? What if aggression was seen as counter-productive, or illustrative of character flaw.

Warlike leaders go well in warlike societies and warlike situations. To change this - you esentially have to change the situation - stop the war.

There are theories that accuse current leaders (mostly unofficial leaders, ie: lobby interests) of TRYING to keep our society in a state of purpetual war, because they fear that without it they will have no reason to hold (or hold the strings of) power.
When you're a hammer - everything looks like a nail - Your biggest fear is that your environment runs outof nails to hit and you become obsolete.

2: Since leadership positions, again, pretty much by definition, are positions of power, you have a built in filter that selects for the kind of people who like power.

I recall the thread about male pregnancy. And how many males are very uncomfortable with the idea. Even though pregnancy is a very powerful thing.

This is exactly the kindof thing that you can use. Make power structures too feminine or too "gay" to appeal to most men in our society. Make them as appealing as male pregnancy.
There are some positions of power that are more nurturing based, where aggression is visibly counter-productive. Perhaps this can be expanded. With more positions of power being nurture based and not protection based.



I think yesterday's California supreme court decision to repeal the ban on Gay Marriage (AGAINST popular vote) is testamount to how judges, not layman people, should vote on issues of constitutionality - as people are generally undereducated and conservative, there'd still be a ban on interracial marriage (that was also repealed by the court AGAINST popular vote).

[Foil]

I think if we were to have like twenty candidates chosen by lottery that the people could vote on, and implement instant run-off voting, then we would be talking!

This is a good improvement to Foils idea, it allows the worst disadvantages of Foil's idea to be bypassed ...

So it's good, it knocks the sharp corners (good and bad) off Foil's idea while still leaving the base idea intact.

I'm confused.

What idea did I post here?

[Kilarin]

A leader of a nation needs a higher education to understand the goings on of the world and the consequences of a nations actions.

Unless you limit the lottery by an IQ threshold or some sort of educational benchmark, there's no way that some McDonald's worker is going to grasp any of what's needed to run the country. This has already been proven with Bush.

But that's my point. I think the current system has, for the last 15 years at least, elected presidents who did WORSE jobs than your average "Would you like fries with that?" Macdonalds cashier would have done.

I think if we were to have like twenty candidates chosen by lottery that the people could vote on, and implement instant run-off voting, then we would be talking!

Interesting, I like that idea!

You've come up with a way to decide the President, but now how will we decide who will overlook the President? You've just postponed the problem.

That, unfortunately, is an entirely valid point.

Well I guess if you threw away the constitution & the bill of rights

Yep. Like I said, I'm NOT really serious with this idea. It's not practical and its got some definite ethical problems. But I still think we might be a LOT better off with a random average joe/jane than with the current crop of idiots and criminals we have running our country. And, as roid points out, there are a LOT of people out there who could definitely do a better job leading our country, but are too sane to want the job. Ford Prefects reference to Douglas Adams is very appropriate here. The best person for president IS probably someone who does NOT want to be president.

that there are creamy people who would be awesome for the job out there

lol!!!!!

This is only because people in that society are ok with that aggression. What if society wasn't ok with it? What if aggression was seen as counter-productive, or illustrative of character flaw.

But as long as getting elected requires competition, it will, via natural selection, filter for people who compete well. Change what society likes to vote for, and all you have done is change the environment the politicians are competing in. You haven't changed the essential nature of the competition. There have been times when doves were more likely to get elected then hawks, and so politicians started trying to look like doves. But that very change was an aggresive attempt to get elected. And nothing but a very aggressive dove was going to make it to the top of the flock and win the office.

In the current election, both Obama and Clinton have pushed an anti-war agenda. And they are both VERY aggressive about their anti-war policies.

What idea did I post here?

I think you were getting blamed for my insanity. And for that, I DEEPLY apologize. NO one should have to be blamed for my ideas except me. Thats a SERIOUSLY bad burden to lay on anyone.

[Richard Cranium]

Very interesting but I too must jump on the minimum education idea. I don't know where I got this image but have a look at these numbers. I wish we could also overlay a population density with this but make no mistake the education system needs help.

[Ferno]

[Dakatsu]

Very interesting but I too must jump on the minimum education idea. I don't know where I got this image but have a look at these numbers. I wish we could also overlay a population density with this but make no mistake the education system needs help.

Wow... Texas!

[Spidey]

Those are prolly immigrants…

[roid]

I'm confused.

What idea did I post here?

oops, sorry, i ment to refer to the OP (Kilarin). I edited the post.

A leader of a nation needs a higher education to understand the goings on of the world and the consequences of a nations actions.

Unless you limit the lottery by an IQ threshold or some sort of educational benchmark, there's no way that some McDonald's worker is going to grasp any of what's needed to run the country. This has already been proven with Bush.

But that's my point. I think the current system has, for the last 15 years at least, elected presidents who did WORSE jobs than your average "Would you like fries with that?" Macdonalds cashier would have done.

i dunno about that. I think a lot of the worst decisions were made to pander TO these kindof idiots, to get their vote by pandering to their opinions. But they tend the choose the least damaging issue to integrate into their official position.
(ie: attacking minorities is often chosen coz minorities are in the minority, it's not as bad as say attacking a majority. An smart Athiest president would never try to outlaw religion (a stupid one might) as he will loose more votes than gain - it will also cause more damage to society than say... outlawing Tennis. So they outlaw Tennis instead, gaining more of the anti-tennis voters than they loose in their sidelining the pro-tennis voters (theoretically... obviously there's easier things to incite hated for than Tennis))

To have one actually in control, to have one of these idiots pressing the buttons without his decisions being filtered through a corrupt but otherwise intelligent politician fishing for the idiot vote - would be even worse.

This is only because people in that society are ok with that aggression. What if society wasn't ok with it? What if aggression was seen as counter-productive, or illustrative of character flaw.

But as long as getting elected requires competition, it will, via natural selection, filter for people who compete well. Change what society likes to vote for, and all you have done is change the environment the politicians are competing in. You haven't changed the essential nature of the competition. There have been times when doves were more likely to get elected then hawks, and so politicians started trying to look like doves. But that very change was an aggresive attempt to get elected. And nothing but a very aggressive dove was going to make it to the top of the flock and win the office.

In the current election, both Obama and Clinton have pushed an anti-war agenda. And they are both VERY aggressive about their anti-war policies.

Ah, yeah well i guess a certain amount of aggression is needed for life in general. I mean - an organism that does not respect it's own life and defend itself with sufficient aggression WILL die.

So yeah, in politics, just as life, you do need a certain amount of aggression (i'd call it self-respect), or energy and motivation to be able to defend your interests. But then - i'm not suggesting either that we should be forcing clinicly depressed and/or suicidal people (ie: the other extreme of the scale, a pathology in itself) into political office.


Natural selection CAN limit aggressiveness, in a family situation an overly aggressive parent may end up hurting her own family - or repeatedly invite attacks on herself (ie: a pre-disposition to pick fights). These things will limit the selectability of her genes (ie: if she ends up hurting/killing her kids, or is herself killed in a fight).

Unfortunately, highly aggressive people can create a kindof master/slave relationship structure around them. Abusive marriages, cults of personality, all abusive relationship structures CAN still give these people the support structures (abiet, very unhealthy ones) they need to reach their goals.
In this regard - when attacking this problem, it may be advantageous to focus on that support structure. If you can break the abusive relationships that give these people power over their support structures, (ie: free the slaves, break the cycle) then you can disarm the person.

How we attack organised crime syndicates like the Mafia is a good illustration. If people are too scared to break outof the system (they are essentially supporting passively, by not fighting back) - if you can guarentee robust protection then they will feel more free to break out. And every one that you break out weakens their system.

The women's movement, and other branched off social movements in the same direction - are powerful methods of offering people alternatives to abusive relationships they might find themselves in. On another vien, by educating people about howto avoid being caught up with boarderline sociopaths, it helps keep these sociopaths from taking advantage of people to reach higher positions of power.
Education can innoculate people against being caught in abusive situations. Education integrated into the culture itself innoculates huge swaths of society at once.

To counter the social conservative movement - the social progressive movement educates the culture and provides alternatives to people who otherwise knew of none. Weakening the cycle.
ie: They are partially correct when they talk about "The Homosexual Adenda". But thankfully they can do nothing about it. Abusive cycles of hate and fear are being eroded away. There are fewer and fewer safe places left for them in our culture.

By changing the culture, making sure everyone is aware of alternatives to "the old ways". It is an inevitable method of bringing about change. Change the culture, and the voters will elect newly appropriate leaders.

We've been winning the memetic war since the 60s (yeah it was a high tide and it left it's visible mark - but we're getting back in track). The internet - as a tool of education and communication - has accelerated things amazingly. I am disheartened by some occasional setbacks, but I do believe there's no stopping. The social conservative mantras of today WILL no longer exist in decades to come - just as homosexuality is no longer a crime, the women's place is no longer in the kitchen, blacks can vote, and interracial marriage is ok.

bit of a tangent rant there... but i think i brought it back in the end

[roid]

my old \"conservative majority? more like progressive majority\" thread is highly relevant to what i just wrote here.


\"conservative majority? more like progressive majority\"
viewtopic.php?t=12469

i made a post at the end, somewhat re-iterating the point of the thread.

[Spidey]

Well Roid if you are endorsing “this” idea, all I can say is…Thank god for conservatives!

[roid]

if you are just going to come into a thread to mindlessly fling insults with nothing to back yourself up and nothing to add, you should pick up your ★■◆● and GTFO.
leave

[Ferno]

Those are prolly immigrants…

LOL. not from what i've seen.

[Spidey]

What insult?

[Spidey]

Those are prolly immigrants…

LOL. not from what i've seen.

Heh, you may have taken me out of context, I was refering to the thick maroon line along the Texas border.

That can’t be a coincidence.