Random selection is necessary to create stable meritocratic institutions (discussed on Hacker News) proposes that, counter-intuitively, we should be using random selection for positions of power and authority. (Not sure what it has to do with “stable meritocratic institutions”, as that is not mentioned anywhere.) This makes sense in that indeed, being good at ‘getting elected’ definitely not the same as ‘being good at policy-making’, but I think it’s throwing away the baby with the bathwater, as the saying goes.

It is not difficult to think of a couple of pretty failure-states, should such a proposal be seriously implemented:

  1. Since making good policies is often unpopular, if necessary, the people would be very quickly demanding that the system be changed.
  2. The population would feel even less involved with politics and being given even less voice and agency than in a democracy.
  3. Since every election then is random, it’d be impossible to maintain any kind of coherent plan or vision for the organization. Arguably, this is already the case when subsequent elections are flip-floping between two dominant parties (like in the US), but this would bring the problem to a yet worse level.
  4. You probably have heard the quote before: “The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter.” Well, now imagine that those average voters now actually get elected. It may not be commonly as bad as it gets (with Donald Trump and the like), but the norm will be having very bad leaders. If you try to raise the bar by introducing eligibility exams and the such, then you end up in the same situation we have now.

Nonetheless, it is an interesting idea, for example combining it with some form of the existing system. For example, for elections, any politician that has reached a certain minimum percentage of votes goes into the pool, and from there, the winner is randomly drawn. But I’m not so convinced that this would fare much better in reality, given points 1) and 2) above, with the addition that it’s more complicated.

From the HN discussion, I’d like to highlight:

Juries, widely trusted to impartially deliver justice, are the most familiar instance.

Trusted by those that have not looked into whether this is actually the case. The first prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, was famously against trial by jury, because of how easily lawyers can abuse biases in multiracial societies, based on his first-hand experience