[keeganpoppen]

i don't mean to be curt, but that sounds awful. in what sort of ideal world would any leader of anything be chosen this way? this is just some post-post-modern madness. you know what another equally reliable, and arguably more palatable, way to ensure 0 impact of campaign contributions? anarchy. just complete, absolute Hobbesian state of nature. at least then we would pick leaders that would help us survive...

randomness is good insurance against downside risk, especially when choosing a committee of people (e.g. a jury), but it has about as much upside as delegating everything to a random Youtube commenter.

[magicsmoke]

"The Great Council of Venice was a large legislative body made up of a relatively small number of noble families"

So in Venice's case, it wasn't so much randomly selecting representatives from all its citizens as it was selecting from already wealthy and influential persons, on the assumption that they were somewhat competent if they could amass and manage their existing power.

[keeganpoppen]

being groomed your whole life to take your father's place is totally different from being randomly forced to be a member of a legislative body, though... even if you are unremarkable, at least you'd learn enough to "know the language" from being in that world your whole life. maybe. also, you could at least argue that nobility have the most "skin in the game" when it comes to decisions about the realm. (not that that justifies that sort of system-- i think everyone makes out a lot better now than they did then)

[thaumasiotes]

> I think everyone makes out a lot better now than they did then

True, but how much of that is due to changes in the governmental system?

[ALittleLight]

Could make it a pool of n lawyers, o professors, p doctors, q people who've made more than X million dollars, etc.

[C1sc0cat]

We need fewer lawyers in politics in my opinion

[elihu]

Members of the House of Representatives aren't really leaders in the sense of having the authority to decide things on their own. I think randomly-chosen representatives could be a workable solution. It might be awful in some ways, but the House would then be a reasonably accurate representation of the full population. And if they did anything nonsensical, there's still the Senate which would presumably still be elected in the usual way.

I'll bet people would take more interest the quality of public education for the average citizen, at least.

[keeganpoppen]

if by quality of public education you mean the quality of the floor. which is kind of my point-- i think the people at the ceiling can raise the tide for all boats, and the "randomly choose the benevolent leader" strategy is an explicit rejection of the idea that people can be distinguished or qualified in any way for anything.

* ie. Minimax-ing