The NY Times editorial pages have reached Peak Absurd with that op-ed saying the way to save democracy is to end voting.
I'm not going to link to it. If you feel you have to subject yourself to this clickbait, do a search...
I can see many advantages to the lottery method he proposes.
Since "Citizens United" we do not have a functioning democracy. Rather we have an auction approach to kleptocracy.
I have been saying for years "You should not vote for anyone who would run for office." And due to the fundraising requirements now, that really is systemic.
I think you are dismissing his arguments too glibly.
@rrb @dangillmor Randomly chosen, and therefore people of average means…would be *less prone to being corrupted? One might start out being not in someone’s pocket. But I imagine such a system would eventually be seen as actually winning a lottery (with a four year payout). To the detriment of all.
Maybe.
1.One question is what percentage of the people will be corruptible?
2. Another point is that the people getting money will only have power for a limited period of time. Will the bribe be worth it?
3. Also, since they will not be campaigning, there is no legitimate reason for the payment. It should be ipso facto quid pro quo (to anyone except a supreme court prostitute.)
4. After leaving office, the person who was bribed would be able to blackmail the person paying the bribe. I think reasonable legislation could fix this.
But, I do not dismiss your point. I do not think everyone will be susceptible to this. If we are, we deserve the results.
I think it will be less susceptible to capture by our oligarchs. (But that is opinion, guesswork, I have no data.)
