[Insanity]

Sure but those need to be understood within context.

Obviously OP is not saying it was unilaterally better and the idea being commented on is just public lottery vs election. You can lift out that idea and apply our current understanding of “public” and the point of OP still stands.

[readthenotes1]

I don't think it does. The voting pool back then would be the modern equivalent of free landowners with citizens parents, and excluding some felons (not gonna investigate which crimes carried the death/exile penalty in Athens).

[kekpopzed]

You dismissed the criticism of your argument without comment and then repeated yourself. Thats very disingenuous and a sign of a weak argument.

[readthenotes1]

I thought perhaps hen hadn't quite digested what it would mean for only a small class of elites to be in the pool that gets picked from.

By excluding over 3/4 of the population, we would hardly get what we think of as democracy.

With those exclusions, the power of being a citizen would increase dramatically and the lottery would make it unlikely bands of eligible citizens would unite to expand the electorate but instead would seek to make membership more stringent, like DPRK's haeksim.

Choice by lottery would also fail to exclude men who have no desire or capacity to do whatever job it is they pulled. I do not know what they did in ancient Greece but in modern times that would lead to a bureaucratic class with the leader being only a figurehead at their mercy--and at times that would be very good. But the bureaucrats class would not be the voice of the people, would not be democratic.

I felt this was obvious from the exclusions and so didn't see the need to elaborate.