The New York Times published an op-ed this week declaring elections are “bad for democracy.”
“[W]e might be better off eliminating elections altogether,” argued Adam Grant, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, in the piece, which subsequently had its headline changed from “Elections are Bad for Democracy” to “The Worst People Run for Office. It’s Time for a Better Way,” hours after publication following online mockery. Despite the new title, the message remained unchanged.
According to Grant, elections are counterproductive to democratic governance. Grant claimed that randomly chosen leaders would be more effective and cited ancient Greece as his prime example, as if ruling an ancient city-state were comparable to managing global affairs in the 21st century.
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. In the United States, we already use a version of a lottery to select jurors. What if we did the same with mayors, governors, legislators, justices and even presidents?
“When you know you’re picked at random, you don’t experience enough power to be corrupted by it,” Grant added. “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.“
If the author had ever examined the histories of recent lottery winners, he might rethink that claim. Lottery winners are more likely to
