Stop the Election!

What if we just did this instead?

Are the results really likely to be *that* much worse?

"Hart is always a joy to read--and I particularly loved his comment that "whenever one ..."

David Bentley Hart Takes Apart By ..."
"You bots are pretty sophisticated, yet still dumb. Gotta up the algorithms and data mining ..."

Simcha Fisher on the Weirdness at ..."
"When you make clear that you literally have not read a word of what you ..."

Simcha Fisher on the Weirdness at ..."
"Better watch that jerking knee on behalf of your child molester."

Simcha Fisher on the Weirdness at ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • beccolina

    We would need a darn good short list. And someone would complain that it was a blindfolded BOY instead of a GIRL . . .

  • IB Bill

    Didn’t Kurt Vonnegut have a story where the president is randomly selected?

    • Tom R

      Isaac Asimov, “Franchise” and G. Keith Chesterton, The Puffed-Up Emperor Guy of Notting Hill.

  • c matt

    Another option would be to allow negative voting – if you don’t like A or B, you can cast a vote for “Not A” or “Not B”, which would then cancel out a positive vote for them. In reality, that is what most voters profess they are doing anyway (voting against unwanted candidate). Might even give third parties a real fighting chance.

  • Brian

    Always remember the Beeblebrox Principle: “Anybody able to get themselves elected should under no circumstances be allowed to serve”–Douglas Adams.

  • SouthCoast

    My own Two Laws of Politics have, for many years, been:
    1. Never follow anyone willing to lead.
    2. Never lead anyone willing to follow.

    Btw, when I am neck deep in the political Slough of Despond, I sometimes almost wish for the return of a monarchy. Don’t like that system of governance, but it would save us the National Circus every four years. We’d still be governed by self-serving, self-worshipping, venal, vicious idiots, but at least we wouldn’t have to chastise ourselves for picking them in the first place! (And, yes, I am NOT serious about this, so put down the bricks!)

  • EMS

    I like the “Brewster’s Millions” version – vote “None of the Above”!

  • Tom R

    The Amish do something similar to select elders. If the votes for you reach a certain quorum of the congregation, your name goes into the draw. But apparently the Amish pray not to be selected. The Mennonite version of “nolo episcopari”.
    A much more involved, multi-stage system was used to [s]elect the Doge of Venice for five centuries until Napoleon kicked it all over.
    Taking a vote to screen out those names that can’t get at least, say, 20% or 25% support – and then drawing lots – not only has some solid support in public choice theory, it also has divine sanction, being used on the last occasion (33 AD) that a successor to the Apostles was chosen.

  • Marthe Lépine

    Maybe it would have been a good idea for the choice of the Republican candidate… Have a few debates to establish a certain level of competence, and then put the names of the remaining choices into a draw, maybe using sealed crystal balls as they did in the above story. It could not really give a worse result than that they actually got.

  • TMLutas

    To answer your direct question, yes, this would be worse because we would very shortly thereafter have a civil war.

    You do not live in the world you think you do.