Would we be any worse off if we chose our leaders by lottery?

Answer 1

No. Those who say we need people with experience have obviously forgotten that it is the people with experience who have screwed this country up so much that this question needs to be asked.

Answer 2

I think we should make elections a reality game show.
We put the leading 12 candidates into the White House for 12 weeks. Each week we give them some simple tasks to do like decorate one room of the house for thier favorite holiday or design a foreign policy that will not alienate half the world.
Each week we vote one candidate out. At the end we are left with one candidate who becomes President with the benefit of 12 well decorated rooms in the White House and 12 bi-partisan policies.

Answer 3

There would be complaints if that happened.

Although when the 2000 election was disputed, it was not just Florida (which went to Bush) in dispute, but 2 States that did go to Gore were also in dispute, one of them New Mexico.

Before Gore was given New Mexico, officials discussed having Bush and Gore go to New Mexico to settle with a game of Poker (winner of poker game gets New Mexico)

Answer 4

Yes because most people who win the lottery are rednecks who can't pronounce words correctly from the south and/or central part of the country...

...this picture I paint sounds vaguely familiar...

:-)

Answer 5

the reality is we would not be better off,it seems no matter who you vote in the end.
The common everyday hard working people of North American pay the price for having governments run our lives good or bad.

Answer 6

Definitely - taking what little power the poeple do have left would be a very sad day.

Answer 7

Its clueless. Of course we would be worse off.

Answer 8

And the winner is Paris Hilton!! Aaaagggghhhhhhh!!!! Think about it.

Answer 9

Probably.

Answer 10

prolly not