The Lottocracy Analysis

The flaws with the current establishment are rooted more deeply than how we elect people in the current democracy. The author argues we’d be better off if we scrapped congressional elections altogether and instead filled the House of Representatives with 435 Americans selected lottery-style from the population. While low voter turnout does contribute to the issues, the answer is not to abolish it. The power of choice is one of the most undervalued traits of a democracy that many have put their lives on the line and even died for. My answer to the prompt question is that The Lottocracy is not a viable alternative to the U.S.’s current system of electoral representative democracy. I will justify my judgement with the following as well as my personal experience: the lack of accountability of

One of the main purposes of elections is to provide citizens with the opportunity to hold their representatives accountable. Those appoint are not obligated to do a good job because they are not faced with reelection. There is no guarantee that the one who is randomly selected for their district represents the ideas of the majority. The power of the general public would diminish because they would not be able to select the voice to represent them. Often we really do elect representatives because we believe they’re good at their jobs. An inadvertent consequence would be giving the president more power.

The challenge to amend the constitution to implement the changes to filling the seats of elected positions. The ones who are currently holding these positions would have to draft legislation to make these changes. The ones who are currently making a career out of politics would have no interest in the change. In order to amend the constitution, both houses need a majority of 2/3 votes and the support of 38 states to adopt the amendment. It took 200 years to amend the constitution to change when pay increases take