This is more of a silly idea, but wanted to see what others would think of this.
It has been said by various people, notably Douglas Adams, that the best man for a job is the man who wants it the least. The reasoning is that those who wants the job wants it for all wrong reasons: power, prestige, money, anything but goodwill and benevolence. Then there's been cases cited as examples. Gerald Ford and Harry Truman, for example (but to be honest, I didn't read into them that deep so don't know for sure if they actually were good presidents).
So would we have a much better slate of candidates if they were selected totally randomly from a national pool of eligible citizens then selected by delegates, rather than looking at who is willing to run?
One problem would that be it'd go against the libertarianism, as force is involved (drafting someone to be a president, even if they didn't want; making it voluntary would only mean we re-run lottery until we end up with a slate of wrong kinds of candidate). I'll leave this up to others to debate whether this would be justified (besides, citizenship is a contract so it can be said this is our duty).
So, would we be better off if we had a lottery for selecting candidates?
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us