Election Vs. Lottery

The newly elected president takes the Oath of Office in front a nation eager for change. There is certainly hope as this new individual presents an impressive resume and seemingly strong character. Most of the country is excited. This was a good choice. Perhaps the draw was truly lucky this time and certainly more lucky than the old ways of crude elections when there were but two choices.

This is a thought experiment that I have wanted to perform since high school when I read a now forgotten titled book by Arthur C. Clark. His story included a United States of the future where all eligible citizens were entered into a lottery for the highest office in the land. While I'm probably more fanatical about democracy than most, this idea has intrigued me. Could such an outlandish idea truly be preferrable? The idea was actually a lot more insane until I performed a few experiments.

A caveat here: democracy is more than results. Voting is about giving citizens a voice and the action of choosing can be argued to be more important than the end product. Voting is the constant while the candidates come and go. So it can't be stressed enough that this experiment is trying to prove the folly of democracy. It may, however, show the folly of our often terribly limited choices.

A lottery could work a number of ways. There would still be criteria for eligibility such as age, citizenship, and criminal record. The nuts and bolts of the random presidential selection were not really part of my project. After all, it started off mainly as a thought experiment. How to actually test this theory inspired by a science fiction book became a bit of a problem. In the end, three separate tests were conducted.

The first was the simplest and was fully in line with the spirit of my original idea. It is relatively simple and I advise that you do it at home. Trust me, it's fun and not very time consuming. I came up with a list of fifty people. These were a healthy cross section of my experience with humanity. Not everyone on my list was even someone I'd met. They were just people whose background, experience, education and character I could guess at with at least the certainty we're able to within our present electoral system. I made sure to include a few weirdos and people who I, in general, just didn't like. Of course, there were also potential candidates closer to home. My wife and in-laws were included. My wife's grandmother even made the shortlist because of her age. She and John McCain are the same age.

Now armed with a hat and fifty names on slips of paper representing the American people, I rather unceremoniously picked my new leader. I wasn't happy with the result. I had chosen an old supervisor from a job a decade ago. But, that person was my new president and I sit down to remember what I knew about them. How good were they in comparison to what they had? Well, at least the new president was highly educated. He would rarely be ruffled about even the most stressful of circumstances and would barrel through any issue with determination. There would also be a bluntness and honesty that many would find refreshing. This guy was no political spinmeister, but his reserved demeanor would prevent too many blunt Vladimir Putin style reactions. This new president was even bilingual and had traveled extensively.

Of course, the guy was a total jackass, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. My main issue was his lack of being able to take advice from others. It was a bit too much of deja-vu for me, but I resolved to stick with my choice. Overall, I wouldn't be too scared with this guy as chief executive. The lack of political experience didn't bother me because it doesn't seem that such experience actually improves the quality of governance. Abraham Lincoln would be viewed as terribly inexperienced and naive if he were to run today.

The next experiment was a bit more involved. In an effort to broaden my scope to include the entire nation, I decided to get a bit more ambitious. Using the hat method, I included all fifty states. My lucky draw was West Virginia. Our new president under this method would probably have a bit of an accent but that's not really a bad trait. I have one myself thanks to my life in Louisiana. The only problem that presented itself during this final experiment was creating a pool of candidates that not only represented an accurate pool of candidates, but also those who I would know something about. I had no intention of getting a list of names and prying into the life of someone for the sake of a strange experiment. I decided to limit my pool to people who had put their lives online already by posting profiles on professional and social sites. I even included a few folks who had made West Virginia news for one reason or another. Remember, however, that convicted felons would not make the lottery, so that wasn't a problem. Finding one hundred acceptable names was relatively easy.

The first person drawn was disqualified as it was soon realized they had been born in a foreign country. Despite the lack of an election, I was intent on sticking with existing constitutional rules regarding presidential eligibility. My second pick was too young. Reminiscent of Goldilocks, the third was just right. It was actually a great pick for the experiment because the individual had actually posted their entire resume online with a link to their own website. Now, it was time to see how great a pick it was for the nation.

Our new president was a male in his early fifties. He had three grown children who had all become professionals in their own fields including one who had taken up a partnership in his father's accounting practice. Yes, the president was an accountant. Perhaps a touch of fiscal awareness would be a positive for the nation. The candidates education included a masters degree from a highly respected institution with practical experience at highly recognizable corporations. A mission statement was posted which seemed honorable enough and our newly chosen president had been the recipient of numerous civic awards.

His government experience was limited to various management projects for the state of West Virginia. So, in essence, political experience was nil in the most traditional sense. However, this was a person who had clearly navigated business politics enough to have made some serious accomplishments in his field. A brief search showed no scandalous involvement, so I realized that this pick could have been much worse. Yes, there was a great deal of uncertainty. Such a candidate could seriously goof up the presidency. Much would come down to character that is hard to quantify in any circumstance.

A lottery certainly would not be a better option for picking our nations leaders. There is too much uncertainty involved and a disastrous choice is just as possible as a good one. Perhaps a good deal of money could be saved, but that is almost a silly point. I then came to another, more disturbing conclusion. Our existing electoral system is almost identical to a lottery in its own right. Just as I was able to find positive external factors about my picks, so can the present method, but it also has the same inherent weakness. We truly won't know how that person will do this supremely important task until they get into office. The nontangible variables such as strength of character and ethics can only be quantified so far. The presidency seems to do things to people. It changes them in ways that are almost creepy. We just don't know. Franklin Roosevelt was a man born with a silver spoon who did more for the poor than any president before him. A man with German roots who helped bring about an end to World War II. Could it have been predicted? Probably not.

Our existing way of electing our president is a lottery. We may feel like we're voting, but the candidates were already chosen long before we had a chance to pull that lever. Regardless of the outcome, the best we can do is hope that lady luck was smiling when we made that pull. Maybe, just maybe, our voting machines are the real "one-armed bandits"