The Worst People Run for Office. It’s Time for a Better Way. - by Adam Grant, NY Times

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------

This is what the "newspaper of record" has been reduced to, a parody of a news organization. We are living in times where satire is indistinguishable from journalism.

Here is a COLLEGE PROFESSOR who thinks that democracy would be best served by eliminating voting. This not only speaks to the state of journalism, but also the educational system.

--------------------

On the eve of the first debate of the 2024 presidential race, trust in government is rivaling historic lows. Officials have been working hard to safeguard elections and assure citizens of their integrity. (Topic change. The author first referred to trust in government, but immediately switched to election integrity. 

Is there some problem with election integrity? Republicans certainly have made a big issue of this, but we have been repeatedly assured that the 2020 election was the most secure in history.)

But if we want public office to have integrity, (Topic change. The author is back to trust in government.)

we might be better off eliminating elections altogether. (Topic change. The author is back to talking about elections.

The author purposefully conflates two issues, but it seems obvious to us that a perfectly conducted election does not speak to the quality of government.)

If you think that sounds anti-democratic, think again. The ancient Greeks invented democracy, and in Athens many government officials were selected through sortition — a random lottery from a pool of candidates. (The author attempts to manipulate us. He wants us to think that because the Greeks invented democracy and Athens used sortition that the two are synonymous.)

In the United States, we already use a version of a lottery to select jurors. (This is not sortition.)

What if we did the same with mayors, governors, legislators, justices and even presidents? (The author quickly expands his premise from "many government officials" to every elected office. 

Notice how the chain of flawed reasoning has progressed. First the author conflated government integrity with election integrity, then conflated Greek democracy with Greek sortition, then jumps straight to sortition for every American elected office.)

People expect leaders chosen at random to be less effective than those picked systematically. ("Chosen at random" is a system.)

But in multiple experiments led by the psychologist Alexander Haslam, the opposite held true. Groups actually made smarter decisions ("Smarter decisions" is value judgment. How does one quantify "smarter decisions?")

when leaders were chosen at random than when they were elected by a group or chosen based on leadership skill. 

Why were randomly chosen leaders more effective? (Term-switching. "Smarter decisions" is not the same as "more effective." And "more effective" is another unquantifiable value judgment.)

They led more democratically. (??? How can someone lead democratically? If a "leader" only does what everyone else wants, that is not leading at all. And how does a leader determine what everyone wants? The author glosses over critical issues.)

“Systematically selected leaders can undermine group goals,” (As mentioned, random selection is a system.

And what are "group goals?" A "group" is not a person, so it cannot have goals. 

So how are these group goals ascertained? Majority vote?)

Dr. Haslam and his colleagues suggest, because they have a tendency to “assert their personal superiority.” When you’re anointed by the group, it can quickly go to your head: I’m the chosen one. 

When you know you’re picked at random, you don’t experience enough power to be corrupted by it. (This is probably the biggest howler in this article. People in positions of power exercise power. It doesn't matter how they arrived there. A person elected to Congress is now at the reins of nearly $6 trillion. Corruption is very nearly inevitable.)

Instead, you feel a heightened sense of responsibility: I did nothing to earn this, so I need to make sure I represent the group well. And in one of the Haslam experiments, when a leader was picked at random, members were more likely to stand by the group’s decisions.

Over the past year I’ve floated the idea of sortition with a number of current members of Congress. Their immediate concern is ability: How do we make sure that citizens chosen randomly are capable of governing?

In ancient Athens, people had a choice about whether to participate in the lottery. They also had to pass an examination of their capacity to exercise public rights and duties. In America, imagine that anyone who wants to enter the pool has to pass a civics test — the same standard as immigrants applying for citizenship. We might wind up with leaders who understand the Constitution. (This is the first thing the author has written with which we agree. Wholeheartedly.

However, right now we have a citizenry and government leaders who are largely products of public education. So if our current leaders don't understand the Constitution, why would sortition improve this situation?) 

A lottery would also improve our odds of avoiding the worst candidates in the first place. When it comes to character, our elected officials aren’t exactly crushing it. To paraphrase William F. Buckley Jr., I’d rather be governed by the first 535 people in the phone book. That’s because the people most drawn to power are usually the least fit to wield it. (He doesn't understand Buckley's comment. Buckley was not advocating for sortition.)

The most dangerous traits in a leader are what psychologists call the dark triad of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. What these traits share is a willingness to exploit others for personal gain. People with dark triad traits tend to be more politically ambitious — they’re attracted to authority for its own sake. (Ahhh, finally the author gives us a grain of truth. Human nature. But somehow he thinks that human nature will be checked by sortition. Why he thinks that is anyone's guess.)

But we often fall under their spell. Is that you, George Santos? (Wow. Of all the tyrants, dictators, and corrupt officials that have populated the museum of "absolute power corrupts absolutely," the author can only name Santos, who of course is a Republican.)

In a study of elections worldwide, candidates who were rated by experts as having high psychopathy scores actually did better at the ballot box. In the United States, presidents assessed as having psychopathic and narcissistic tendencies were more persuasive with the public than their peers. A common explanation is that they’re masters of fearless dominance and superficial charm, and we mistake their confidence for competence. Sadly, it starts early: Even kids who display narcissistic personality traits get more leadership nominations and claim to be better leaders. (They aren’t.)

If the dark triad wins an election, we all lose. When psychologists rated the first 42 American presidents, the narcissists (Um, which ones? Were too many of them Democrats?)

were more likely to take reckless risks, make unethical decisions and get impeached. Add a dash of Machiavellianism and a pinch of psychopathy, and you get autocrats like Putin, Erdogan, Orban and Duterte.

Eliminate voting, and candidates with dark triad traits would be less likely than they are now to rise to the top. (Undocumented assertion.)

Of course, there’s also a risk that a lottery would deprive us of the chance to select a leader with distinctive skills. At this point, that’s a risk I’m willing to take. As lucky as America was to have Lincoln (A surprise. Lincoln was a Republican, yet the author likes him.)

at the helm, it’s more important to limit our exposure to bad character (This isn't possible.)

than to roll the dice on the hopes of finding the best.

Besides, if Lincoln were alive now, it’s hard to imagine that he’d even put his top hat in the ring. In a world filled with divisiveness and derision, evidence shows that members of Congress are increasingly rewarded for incivility. And they know it. (Sigh. The author thinks Lincoln would be repelled by incivility. Apparently he has never read the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Lincoln engaged in attacks and was attacked. Repeatedly.)

A lottery would give a fair shot to people who aren’t tall enough or male enough to win. (Ahhh, fairness. The leftist obsession.)

It would also open the door to people who aren’t connected or wealthy enough to run. Our broken campaign finance system lets the rich and powerful buy their way into races while preventing people without money or influence from getting on the ballot. (The author is unable to make the connection that elections are expensive because of the campaign finance system. That's not a problem with elections, it's a problem with the financing, which is a problem that derives from the fact that government has oodles of [unconstitutional] power. As long as government is that powerful, it will take money to get elected.

Thus the problem isn't the way leaders are selected, it's with the unconstitutional power government possesses.)

They’re probably better candidates: Research suggests that on average, people who grow up in low-income families tend to be more effective leaders and less likely to cheat — they’re less prone to narcissism and entitlement. (Character is the issue, not the system by which leaders are chosen.)

Switching to sortition would save a lot of money too. The 2020 elections alone cost upward of $14 billion. (Who would save money? People give to campaigns willingly. Does the author think that these people would somehow be grateful they cannot donate to their candidates? Who would he know this?)

And if there’s no campaign, there are no special interests offering to help pay for it. (If government were constrained by the constitution, there would be no need to spend millions to get elected. A limited government means a corrupt leader would have little power to direction billions and trillions to corporate cronies and tinpot dictators, let alone dictate what kind of lightbulb people are required to use. A government leader with little power means that there is no financial benefit to lobby. No financial benefit to spend oodles on campaigns. No financial benefit when there's no power at stake.)

Finally, no voting also means no boundaries to gerrymander (A problem of power of the leader, not the selection method of the leader.)

and no Electoral College to dispute. (Leftists hate the Electoral College, unless it delivers their desired results.)

Instead of questioning whether millions of ballots were counted accurately, we could watch the lottery live, just as we do with teams getting their lottery picks in the N.B.A. draft. (And then we would question whether the lottery was conducted properly...

The lottery picks of the NBA do not randomly assign players to various teams. Teams get a lottery position, which is the order in which teams choose. When their turn comes, they announce their selection. Then the team negotiates a contract with their selection. 

Does this sound like a political process in any way?)

Other countries have begun to see the promise of sortition. Two decades ago, Canadian provinces and the Dutch government started using sortition to create citizens’ assemblies that generated ideas for improving democracy. In the past few years, the French, British and German governments have run lotteries to select citizens to work on climate change policies. Ireland tried a hybrid model, gathering 33 politicians and 66 randomly chosen citizens for its 2012 constitutional convention. In Bolivia, the nonprofit Democracy in Practice works with schools to replace student council elections with lotteries. Instead of elevating the usual suspects, it welcomes a wider range of students to lead and solve real problems in their schools and their communities. (Goody for them. The author is only able to cite non-American examples, and can't be bothered to even cite the results, even positive results.)

As we prepare for America to turn 250 years old, it may be time to rethink and renew our approach to choosing officials. The lifeblood of a democracy is the active participation of the people. There is nothing more democratic than offering each and every citizen an equal opportunity to lead. (In other words, transform our representative republic into a democracy, then eliminate voting altogether in favor of a completely untested method unleashed upon a nation of 330 million, call it democracy, and hope that it works.

Sounds like a plan.)

Adam Grant, a contributing Opinion writer, is an organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, the author of “Think Again” and the host of the TED podcast “Re:Thinking.”