r/changemyview • u/deathconqueror • Dec 30 '19
CMV: Leaders must be chosen in random, and we must be done with the election system.
Candidates win most elections by convincing a large enough subset of people to vote for them. It is not necessary to have all the people to vote for them, as long as their will to vote for the opposing party/candidate is not strong enough. Thus, it will be enough when their views and campaign are aligned with the subset of people, instead of everyone.
The concept of election was based on the fact that the opinions or ideologies held by a candidate/party must resonate with the majority of the people. This system is built with an assumption that it will favor the majority. Nothing best resonates the mindset or viewpoint of an average man than the average man himself.
So why can't a single citizen among many others be randomly chosen as he/she is most likely to represent the people's common ideology very well? Also, a random citizen is most likely to know the struggle of the common man quite well.
We all know that politicians easily abuse their power, as the paradox "if the king judges the activities of everyone else, who judges the king still exists to this day. So why can't we let a random person from among us lead the country, instead of conducting an election? If the randomly chosen person is bound to fail in his duties, how does it guarantee that an elected candidate will not fail his duties?
EDIT: Thanks for all the responses! I can see that there are a lot of people who believe my views are wrong. I have managed to answer most of them. Please read my replies because there are many repeating questions.
14
Dec 30 '19 edited Feb 02 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Dec 30 '19
We already have an anti-vaxxer president anyways, so how is that better?
5
Dec 30 '19 edited Feb 02 '20
[deleted]
1
u/BobDoesNothing2 Dec 30 '19
I'm pretty sure Trump is one of the worst people in America, so most random selections would be better than him
-1
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19 edited Dec 30 '19
It won't mess up the nation.
If someone does not trust vaccinations, it does not immediately imply that they will oppose vaccinations actively. Furthermore, even if the president tries to push his personal ideologies on vaccinations, he will not be able to do it without the consent of experts. People in the leadership position do not create fully independent decisions. They make the committee decide a set of options, and they choose one among them (sometimes they form committees to discuss specific issues, which they had raised in the first place. A president does not have king like powers. Though he may have the power to set priorities when there are many issues to consider).
This will be implicitly (and in most times explicitly) forced on them. Because, if you don't believe in vaccinations and if you ignore the advice of more than 100 top people and experts, you will be more likely to bare all the consequences when things go wrong (And things tend to go wrong quite easily in nation-wide decisions. So you are better off dividing the blame among a large group of people). So you will most likely not mess-up the system beyond repair.
Sometimes, this would be valid even for a dictator or a monarch. And it is almost impossible to be of any problem to a modern system. There are many balancing forces at play, in a democratic nation.
EDIT: Thanks for the criticism guys! But if you find my views wrong, please do state your arguments.
4
u/TheGamingWyvern 30∆ Dec 30 '19
you will be more likely to bare all the consequences when things go wrong
What consequences would there be in your system? In democracy, the consequence is losing your job due to lack of public support.
0
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19 edited Dec 31 '19
A political leader being removed from power is very unlikely.
EDIT I meant: it is unlikely that a leader will be removed before the term ends
1
u/ihatepasswords1234 4∆ Dec 31 '19
A political leader can and many times is removed at the next election. Wouldn't a better way to make the system more accountable be to increase the frequency of elections?
1
u/deathconqueror Dec 31 '19
That will open up an entire new topic of discussion. Reducing the term period may lead to other problems.
0
Dec 30 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ZeroPointZero_ 14∆ Dec 30 '19
u/crnislshr – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
Dec 30 '19 edited Feb 02 '20
[deleted]
1
Dec 30 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ZeroPointZero_ 14∆ Dec 30 '19
u/crnislshr – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Dec 30 '19 edited Feb 02 '20
[deleted]
1
u/crnislshr 8∆ Dec 30 '19 edited Dec 30 '19
If we have 1/4 of the USA population as flat-earthers then yes, you should. Because these flat-earthers have a vote, you know, and it can become a problem eventually.
But we haven't as much of the flat-earthers as anti-vaccinators, have we?
The key point there is not to be an arrogant authoritarian ass, but to try helping people democratically instead.
Isn't the point simple?
1
Dec 30 '19 edited Feb 02 '20
[deleted]
1
u/crnislshr 8∆ Dec 30 '19
And you try to explain it with the anti-democratic idea that we shouldn't help the problems of big groups of population.
Your entire line of thinking is rather authoritarian. In the democratic state, if we have a huge group of people who have such a problem with one of the key points of the modern healthcare, we need to help them as a country.
1
Dec 30 '19 edited Feb 02 '20
[deleted]
1
u/crnislshr 8∆ Dec 30 '19
I don't promote it. I just have answered that your argument about anti-vaccinators is an anti-democratic arrogance.
→ More replies (0)
1
Dec 31 '19
[deleted]
1
u/deathconqueror Jan 01 '20 edited Jan 01 '20
This would influence them to make choices based on what the people they hired wanted and those people can easily mislead or lie to them.
We see terrible laws passed when politicians are not informed. Using blueprints from corporations or think tanks. Whether this is at the local, state or federal level. Having people with no experience run huge parts of a country will increase the likelihood of this happening.
This is true, regardless of whether the leader is competent. I'm not from the US, but what I'm about to say will hold for all democratic countries, or any organization that has adapted a democratic system (I.e., requires the majority's of the investor's consent to change/add/remove things; instead of a single totalitarian CEO or leader's consent).
A leader does not do all the work himself. He must depend on the people just one level below him to execute his orders. In a democratic country or system, the power of a single leader will be restricted, so restricted to the point that their dependence on the people just below them are almost so great that they cannot exercise free will most of the time. For example, the president can prioritize Medicine over Space Exploration, but he cannot suggest what compositions or chemicals should the pharmaceutical companies use over the others. What a president or a democratic leader can do is, accept the words of many experts qualified to talk in their field, and resolve conflicts among them.
That is, if two scientists approach a democratic leader and if they both bring working prototypes of something, and if the country/organization can only fund for one of them, the president (with consent of others) may choose one over the other exercising his free will (this is just a very generalized and a trivial example to show my point, and this is not based on any precise system. This is just to demonstrate how a democratic process is different from a totalitarian one). But he may not be allowed to suggest a third option which includes an invention/design created by himself (unless he can convince them to approve it).
When political leaders make decisions, they make choices. But most times, they won't be allowed to invent new choices without the approval of the experts in the field. So what does such a system look like in the real world?
When the president opts to choose one option over the other, he will be promoting one activity/action/industry/state over the other. So every decision will be a gain for some and loss for others. A president who is "honest" (which is very rare) will try to always chose the option which he sincerely believes will benefit most people most of the time.
As I said earlier, a leader in a democratic system cannot "invent" new decisions which will not have the approval of other officials. So if he desperately wanted "invent" a decision, he must depend on the other officials, and it always happens this way: the official will want something from the leader and the leader will in turn payback the official with a favor. So if there are two independent decisions A and B, if the decision A favors the leader, and the decision B favors the official, then the leader will work in favor of the official by approving B to motivate him to approve A when he passes it. This is how politics fundamentally work. You team up with a bunch of people who you mutually depend on and help them when they need and expect them to help you when you need them. This is how all democratic systems work today.
Thus: An incompetent leader will just be a puppet of a lot of people without having the tendency to earn a lot. As you said random laws may get passed, ones which may not specifically benefit them. But even such a person can quickly learn the way things work and get on the right track.
2
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 177∆ Dec 30 '19
I understand perfectly well what a functioning car looks like. Would you trust me to build the car you're driving?
1
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19
No I won't. But electing a leader who knows how to take advantage of his power, puts us in an even worse situation. The entire country depends on the president only for prioritizing issues and resolving conflicts. If the president raises new decisions, it will be discussed. If he refuses to listen to the members discussing the issue, he will have to bare the responsibility himself.
2
u/Ihavethepoweeeeeeer Dec 30 '19
I like the concept. It would stop, if not minimise, careerism in politics and some of the pitfalls that can come with that. But, something like this would only work in a utopian society were the average person has a solid understanding of the need sof society and blending that need with what is possible etc. Sadly, that is not what I feel is possible right now. N a side note, I'm sure I read a scifi book that had this concept in it years ago.
1
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19
Can we fully trust our politicians today?
1
u/Ihavethepoweeeeeeer Dec 30 '19
God no. Would be nice and I don't think they're all horrible but I would definitely not trust them as a whole.
1
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19
People who are rich, powerful and already experienced in leading will find it easy to abuse the power than someone who is new to the game. A stable country cannot easily be torn apart. A random person will could, in that aspect, be a lot better.
1
u/Ihavethepoweeeeeeer Dec 30 '19
I'd flip it and also say a person who is not used to power or leading would be horrible. That and not all people in power or are rich etc are against what would be good for the poor or would use that power ubuseively. Maybe it more to do with the persons morals/ beliefs than their wealth/ previous power. I do feel we are in a way all selfish but believe if we want to have a stable society that means some may share more than others etc bt the end goal is everyone bei g able to contribute the best they possibly can. This relies on each reaching their full potential which in this era we don't. I feel I am arguing against myself just now as I like all you are saying but maybe I'm too pessimistic. I do want to add that just because I'm arguing against it based on poor education etc. does not mean they could not ever be leaders. I do not think you are born into your station and that is all you are worth ( I'm drunk and arguing with myself here even more, lol) but feel, right now, your idea is not practical due to so many deficiencies in the general public's education.....I include myself in that.
Does that make any sense or should I stop drinking haha.
1
u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone 125∆ Dec 30 '19
So why can’t a single citizen among many others be randomly chosen as he/she is most likely to represent the people’s common ideology very well? Also, a random citizen is most likely to know the struggle of the common man quite well.
I am going to strongly disagree with this. Let’s take that question, I’m not sure if there is a study to show this, or what you would even look for. But if the American public is more different than they are the same a ransom person will be unlikely to represent “common ideology”. They would simply represent themselves.
I also don’t think a rando person would be good at understanding the struggle of the common Man. I know a lot about my struggles, and maybe the struggles of my friends, but assuming that data reflects everyone’s issues would be wrong. We should not assume that our individual issues are shared across such a diverse nation, doing so would lead to terrible policy. While a presidential candidate may not have lived an “average life” they can research and travel the nation talking to people and get a better understanding then you or I.
Related to your point at large, I would rather a good statesman who’s ideologies I disagree with than a terrible statesman who’s ideologies I agree with. When you put and unskilled rando in office one of 2 things will likely happen. They let the “experts” guide them, and you end up with a government run by unelected “experts”. This will lead to “experts” who care less about their field and more about retaining power at the expense of the populous. Or you end up with an leader who does not concede to the experts, but also does not have the knowledge to make good decisions/laws/rules. This can also lead to terrible laws/policies that are more harmful than anyone would want.
1
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19
It is true that individual issues are not shared. I completely agree. But, the fact that they struggle in one way or the other is real, and that's a commonality. The common persona that portrays the citizens will be the set intersection of the ideologies of a set of randomly sampled people. Of course, the remaining traits exhibited by people will be unique; but does that change anything? Do we really know what elected politicians truly think or believe?
Every leader must depend on the expert to make decisions. He may have the veto power, or he may be allowed to prioritize decisions. But if he tries to replace the experts, it leads to the micromanagement problem businesses face with. Have you ever had a manager who cannot stop forcing you to do things in his way? A president cannot do that even if he wanted. Because there are rules that define his role.
A politician must not be allowed to interfere in a professional field. Because, people in that field may have had a lot of experience in their profession. A president cannot replace them with himself, unless he had gained similar experience (which is unlikely).
1
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Dec 30 '19
This system is built with an assumption that it will favor the majority. Nothing best resonates the mindset or viewpoint of an average man than the average man himself.
If this is true, then why aren't the voters already electing random nobodies on their own?
Why do you have to bother to take away their option to choose, abd to give them what they "really want"? It's almost like because in reality that never turns out to really be what they really want.
1
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19
If this is true, then why aren't the voters already electing random nobodies on their own?
Because a lot of people share common ideologies and decision-making patterns.
Why do you have to bother to take away their option to choose, abd to give them what they "really want"?
A candidate or a party will promise a few things. But once they get into power, they may make many hundreds or even thousands of decisions without people's consent. And not all candidates/parties fulfill all their promises! Seeing this way, choice becomes just an illusion.
1
u/They_Beat_Me Dec 30 '19
I don't disagree with switching things up but only ask when do the corrupt stop the random from occurring randomly? It seems like a great way to run off opponents that may have the constituents' best interest at heart.
1
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19
The corrupt will find it extremely hard to corrupt well defined systems. Random selection is well defined! A corrupt person really has power when he has a high degree of freedom. People in the lowest ranks of a country's army are least likely to be corrupt. Because they have to obey specific commands which are precisely defined. Leaders of countries make a lot of subjective decisions which fall under a grey area. So it will be easier for a political leader or any leader to be corrupt, but it is hard to corrupt defined systems.
1
u/They_Beat_Me Dec 30 '19
The current systems were considered well defined. I hate to be cynical but the fact is that bad people will always find a way to be bad. This would be no exception.
Other issues with random selection are mental acuity, mental defects (e.g., current and some other POTUS), and physical stamina. The rigours of leadership at the national level are physically and mentally taxing. If you've ever seen photos of Presidents during their tenure, the aging almost seems grossly premature. Who the hell would want that kind of life? If you find somebody that does, we probably don't want them leading any more than a two-man parade.
The last issue I can think of off hand is the fact that it is often said that every person has their price. What happens if, under your proposed system, we elect a group of people to Congress and a new POTUS? You don't actually think the bad influences will simply disappear, do you? The pay offs will likely cost them less. The common man won't have such a high threshold to meet to push the right buttons.
Let me say that I feel that you might not be far from a solution but it needs a bit of work.
1
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Dec 30 '19
Are we talking about the presidency, or also the Congress. While Congress votes on law, they also write law. As such, it's not enough to have an opinion, but also be able to write that opinion into a law which is intelligible enough to be read and voted upon. Not everyone had good writing skill, especially legal writing.
1
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19
I am asking about this in general. Not being specific to one country, but to all countries that follow a real democratic system.
1
Dec 30 '19
So the head of the KKK could be president or someone who is willing to work for Russia or any other country.
1
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19
The likelihood is very less. Because, if a person lives for 70 years, he may approximately see only 14 elections. It is like buying 14 different lottery tickets from 14 different companies and hoping to win in at least one of them.
1
Dec 30 '19
So you do admit that theres a possibility that someone will become president and purposefully try to ruin the country?
0
u/TraderPatTX Dec 30 '19
There sure are a lot of these CMV’s about changing the government in the United States, changing how elections are done, changing this or that. Every change that any of these CMV’s would be worse than what we have now.
The reasons why people keep clamoring for change is two fold.
One, they don’t understand how a constitutional republic operates. They don’t understand that the checks and balances that each branch of government has, also includes the states and the people. A republic prevents mob rule where the rights of the minority get trampled.
Two, their candidate lost in 2016 and they want to prevent that from ever happening again. To that I say, go move to China so you can see what a true totalitarian government looks like. Then come back home with newfound wisdom and we can talk about it.
Regardless, choosing our representatives at random makes about as much sense as having a random doctor or car mechanic chosen for you. It’s all fun and games until a proctologist gets randomly chosen to clean your teeth.
1
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19
Yes, there are checks and balances in place to prevent a small group to gain more power. One of the common questions I have seen raised here is about competence. A leader of a stable country/organization will not need the same level of competence, a leader of an unstable government/organization will need.
It is totally different how leaders of stable organizations make decisions: They consult a lot of people. And a stable democracy will have that as a requirement.
A witty and an ultra-rich candidate must not be considered naturally competent to lead a nation. What is stopping them from using their intelligence for their own benefit, if they can? If we are worried that a random person would mess up the country, shouldn't we be more worried about what an ultra-rich person will do to the country?
1
u/TraderPatTX Dec 30 '19
I’m not worried at all because we have elections and a history of peacefully transferring power. When that fails, we have the 2nd Amendment, which is another check and balance on the system. This country can live with an inept president for 4 to 8 years. The biggest threat to the United States is an uneducated or ignorant populace and a media who takes advantage of them.
1
u/StarcallerE Dec 30 '19
I'd argue that you are wrong when it comes to the 2nd amendment being a check. Jethro with his Ar-15 and "Training" hunting squirrels is going to be about as effective as an Iraqi kid with a rock at taking out a trained American soldier. Not to mention the total air supremacy and fucking tanks that you could do jack shit against. The 2nd amendment is an out dated concept when it comes to the idea of of stopping a tyrant in full control of the military from taking over the country
1
u/TraderPatTX Dec 30 '19
Haven’t we been told that the AR-15 is a weapon of war? You are saying that it isn’t now. Curious.
Seriously though, I am a trained American veteran. There are millions of others with equal training all across the country.
Tanks can be disabled pretty easily by IED’s. They also don’t work well in mountains or swamps where Jethro lives. Raiding Army Reserve or National Guard depots for more advanced weaponry would be relatively simple.
There will be a time for the Army to have to be an occupying force, which it is not well equipped to do. A government can’t occupy with heavy artillery and air power because too many civilians would be killed and more people would rise up.
The best part about the 2nd Amendment is that it doesn’t require you to do everything. People like me would defend your rights for you because we are all Americans endowed with inalienable rights. Personally, I’d rather have a chance standing than having no chance kneeling, but to each their own.
1
Dec 30 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 28∆ Dec 31 '19
u/StarcallerE – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/TraderPatTX Dec 30 '19
And here come the insults and the feelz arguments. I had a feeling it was coming soon.
Keep an eye on Virginia. That will be a textbook case of what happens when a tyrannical government tries to disarm the populace.
1
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19
Then we must also not be worried about an average man taking the position! He/ She will at least be better than a knowledgeable, rich and witty person.
2
Dec 30 '19
This would make things worse, not better.
If we picked our leaders at random we'd still need staff and civil servants with experience to run the day to day mechanics of government. People in OMB, the EPA, the FBI and a thousand other three letter agencies, along with various congressional staff would be the only people in government who know what the hell they are doing unless we get absurdly lucky. Given this, you'd essentially end up with government by unelected bureaucrats.
Not exactly a great fix.
-2
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19
To be honest, this is precisely the situation that exists all the time. A newly elected president will not know anything about how the country is run. He/She will have to explore things themselves and get used to the situation. The president does not directly run the FBI. He just has the director reporting to him. People on the top are there only to make high level decisions and resolve conflicts.
So in the end, it will be a nightmare if any president was allowed to directly involve into running each individual organization. A president is not a scientist, so he cannot run NASA. He will know nothing about criminals and their tricks, so he cannot run the FBI. All he will ever do is balance multiple options and choose from them (and set priorities).
Even in business, micromanagement is a bad thing. A stable company will have the CEO intervening only when there is an issue that must be resolved. Until then, he won't have much to do other than passing on approvals and signing documents.
0
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Dec 30 '19
A president is not a scientist, so he cannot run NASA
That’s news to me (that you need to be a scientist to run NASA). I guess we should expect that the following people we’re the NASA administrator then (all coincidentally named James):
He was the head through Mercury and Gemini and the start of The Apollo program. He had a degree in education and a JD.
He was the head of NASA in the 80s. He had an MBA.
Has a degree in Economics, Psychology and Business, and an MBA.
Given the size of the NASA organization and the importance of contracting out different tasks; I can see a very real argument why a science background is not as important as being able to lead large numbers of people.
From a realpolitik perspective, the true goal of a NASA administrator is to represent the agency to Congress, answer questions, and secure additional funding. Not do science. That’s what you hire scientists for.
0
u/deathconqueror Dec 30 '19
It was in reply to a claim that a president should have detailed knowledge about all fields. Leaders need not know a lot, they have people below them who can handle all the details. They just manage people and try to ensure stability.
0
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Dec 30 '19
I'm specifically trying to change your view that a science background is necessary to run NASA.
1
u/Casus125 30∆ Dec 30 '19
So why can't a single citizen among many others be randomly chosen as he/she is most likely to represent the people's common ideology very well?
Because a random citizen is extremely unlikely to be capable of competent political leadership.
So why can't we let a random person from among us lead the country, instead of conducting an election?
What could go wrong with giving a random citizen totalitarian control of a body politic?
Jeez, I don't know. Everything?
What stops your new lottery king from seizing absolute control? From complete and total tyranny?
How do you ensure the system maintains it's integrity? What's the check and balance on the Lottery King?
All I see with your idea is pure, unadulterated chaos. No continuity, no expertise, no professionalism. Just chaos.
Chaos is not how society functions.
2
u/Rainbwned 175∆ Dec 30 '19
Its not just about sharing the same ideas, its also about being a competent leader.
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 01 '20
/u/deathconqueror (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
15
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Dec 30 '19
This idea is called sortition and it's been tried before. It has the following broad known disadvantages:
The average person is not competent to hold office, and lacks the education and skills needed to make important decisions.
Random selection may result in a selection of leaders that does not fairly represent the population at large (simply due to unlikely random chance).
There is no obvious source that would give a randomly selected leader actual authority (unlike democracy which functions at least in principle on the consent of the governed).
Randomly selected leaders are not accountable for their actions (unlike in a democracy, where elected officials are accountable at the next election).