Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections

For a critical thinking exam, you should be able to show that you can decipher political gobledegook, identify lies and platitiudes, strawman arguments etc(there would be much less of it anyway as in a restricted franchise very few with votes would be swayed by it, which is the point.)

Non-evilness would be shown by answering questions designed to test basic empathy, and also by the lack of recent recorded crimes or misdemenours.

Simple. Don't protect it just like sharing nuclear secrets or CSAM isn't protected.

In my opinion even charisma implies higher than average intellect which is already something.

We should put more pressure on elected politicians around competence and integrity, sure, but it doesn’t mean random person is going to be better.

In the original comparison second category of people have much higher intellect than average.

Term limits seem fine, just make them a reasonable length. Say, three of their full six year terms for a Senator seems fine for example. Or maybe allow states to elect one senator to a fourth term (logically this will always be their senior senator) but never both and no fifth terms. [I'm assuming we'll allow, as for Presidents, an incomplete first term, for senators that might be by election to replace another out of sequence]

A freshman senator might be intimidated by an aide who knows DC like the back of their hand after forty years in the office back room, but when they're back for their second, let alone third term, that old hack doesn't know the first thing about the actual job, that aide isn't in those meetings hashing out a 2am compromise with the White House, and they're not in a town hall back home trying to explain to some fellow who has never left Kentucky why we need to spend so much money on a Navy they've never seen.

Another alternative, which existing American politicians will hate but too bad, is age limits. For example the UK's Supreme Court all have to retire by age 75. I can't imagine a lot of the oldest senators are effective legislators, they'd rather be in bed than get stuff done. So, age them out.

Couple questions .... what is the author's point of origin and experience with "democracy" and/or "democracies"? I mention this as the founding principals of this Lottery thing are more or less "complaints" and not values or principals really. It is very slasdash and hollow.

But this is a fun thought experiment so lets .... move on.

Why *exactly* is democracy the absolute best form of govt known to mankind? You just kinda slip that in there which is a massive assumption. And exactly which democracy is best aside from the one proposed?

For that matter exactly WHO? and I do mean WHO says that democracies aren't working? Who the fuck has the balls to say that horseshit premise?

No one is saying that. Not seriously, anywhere. No one. That ultimately is the fatal flaw for this thought experiment.

There are fundamentally different value judgments from "European" "Democracies" vs US vs Asian as examples.

Lottery based is an interesting system but not really doable the way this site lays out.

3 years is too short to do anything; unless there is a relief value where a certain percentage (by lottery) of that year's cohort can do something critical in any representative form of govt. Incumbency.

You do in fact need a slowly revolving core of representatives who can do proper work over 2-5 terms max. Otherwise its a constant nut house with nothing getting done and not near enough permanence for medium to long term solutions over time.

At the end of the day for me -- I do not think the people behind this thought this through and it shows. There isnt serious skull sweat in this thing and I think it undermines an interesting concept. I also think just because you are frustrated in democratic processes -- you are the problem.

Apathy is a choice. Ignorance is a choice. Frustration is a choice.

If you do not like your form of govt -- move, make peace with it or roll up them sleeves and get busy participating.