Off Topic — HabitableZone

Off Topic » in reply to re: leaders

re: leaders
gbaikie — (archived)

I basic problem with your idea of random leader, is you IMO miss the value of a democracy and elections.
As some say to the Iraqis, democracy is not electing a leader, it's a process.
Who is picked is not as important as the process that picks.
There number of aspects to this. To win election, requires that many people organize in support of a person. This organization make governing possible. It also establishes agreement and direction [platform]. But it's not only Tom that fails to appreciate this- this is the same mistake the Dems are making- and therefore why they going to lose and continue to lose.
Also, if you picked at random, the first thing a smart person who was selected would do is essentially go on a campaign trail- instead of governing. So, you are simply wasting time- a campaign BEFORE getting elected, allows the president to begin the process of governing, which usually requires about 100 days [hence 100 day "grace period" customally allowed- though it's actually more 100 days, because it can begin to some extant soon after getting elected, so it's more like +120 days].

If you had the process associated with electing leader without actually having the leaders, you could probably have all that's essential to govern- "anarchy" could actually work with this kind of system.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (89 posts)