Would a lottery be a better way to choose government leaders?

Question

Do you think that instead of elections, we would be better off with a lottery where if selected, you must serve? During your time of service:
You only earn the average income for your state;
You and your family are segregated from the general populous so that no one can influence you;
You get no days off;
When done you get no life time secret service protection and no pension;
Any financial gain your business or corporation receives as a result of your service is taxed at 110%.
When you are done, you are left to face the wrath or gratitude of your neighbors over your decisions.

There was an Outer Limits episode using this scenerio some years ago. The winner had to be dragged out kicking and screaming.

Answer 1

That is a scary thought! I would definitely rather pick my leader - who knows what you would get with a lottery!

Answer 2

I think elections are important, discussion of issues is important. I just think we should learn as voters to endorse and build the ego of sensible people to become leaders. One has to remember that at this moment in time our government is a capitalistic democracy although sometimes it seems like a pure democracy. I think it is gonna be that way until the worlds people all get on one page. This would include the repentance from the religious eternal damnation worship that is in most of us, the hate, the sense of entitlement one above the other. Forgive Affirmed Spirit could change all that, but we have a long way to go. Humans have to get the time and use the time to make way for a heaven on earth. Many havent even had the time. We got a ways to go, but you are on a track here. I would serve for my average salary, but noone would elect me at this time. I have to retire from my electrician mechanic job in the Federal Government first. I think there are many like me who for some reason are excluded from the political process. But forcing? I dont even like the draft for armed service!

Answer 3

once you're a actual analyzing nut, you need to continuously examine James Joyce (Ulysses or A Portrait of the Artist as a youthful guy) or Don Quixote with the aid of Miguel de Cervantes. there are a number of different books i know that i could evaluate good, yet from what you have indexed, I doubt you will have an interest.

Answer 4

Absolutely not.

The role of our elected officials (despite the fact that so many of them have lost sight of it) is to represent the people of their respective districts. Only the people can choose who they believe will best represent them and one of the biggest problems we have with our elected officials, today, is that they're already too cut off from us, such that they don't really know what we want and are left to guess. The other restrictions you place on them, in your proposal, (110% tax, no pension, no days off, no contact with friends or family?) would guarantee that nobody would want to serve.

Answer 5

It couldn't be any worse.

When I look at the Democrat lineup of drunken murderer, KKKer, gigilo traitor, and corrupt Evita, etc, I cannot help but think that people chosen randomly from the phone book would not be better.

And I'm sure the Dems can name some Republicans they feel the same way about.

Answer 6

You gave some serious thought to that. The problem is, government used to be about service. We have lost sight of that very important aspect.

Answer 7

this nation is built on freedom and the right of choice as well as the protection of the people that work to make these laws governing the people of this nation.

Answer 8

Except for the lottery part, it's a good idea.
We need to VOTE for who is in office. otherwise we would get people who were in the remotest way qualified to hold office.

Answer 9

The problem with this idea is, we could very well end up with someone as ignorant as you, Papa_Bear, in office. I do believe this is the most retarded political idea I've ever encountered...lol

Answer 10

That's horrible. Lottery? No way.