What if we just did this instead?
Are the results really likely to be *that* much worse?
We would need a darn good short list. And someone would complain that it was a blindfolded BOY instead of a GIRL . . .
Didn’t Kurt Vonnegut have a story where the president is randomly selected?
Isaac Asimov, “Franchise” and G. Keith Chesterton, The Puffed-Up Emperor Guy of Notting Hill.
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.
Always remember the Beeblebrox Principle: “Anybody able to get themselves elected should under no circumstances be allowed to serve”–Douglas Adams.
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!)
I like the “Brewster’s Millions” version – vote “None of the Above”!
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 http://tinyurl.com/2y6nmo, being used on the last occasion (33 AD) that a successor to the Apostles was chosen.
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.
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.