The end of democracy is the lottery?

If the American public thinks that the leader elected by ballot is not as good as "an ordinary Democratic (Republican)", then what is the point of ballot election, it is better to draw lots.

I am Chinese and my mother tongue is Chinese, so I can read Chinese much faster than English. I was busy for a while, and I mainly watched the simplified Chinese Internet for Internet surfing, and the more I watched, the more depressed I became. Recently, I wrote an English document, and I went to English ** to shop, and it turned out that I really discovered a new world, and I was in a good mood. It's better to be alone than to be happy, and I'll share it with you. The first is a passage from a VOX report:

Some polls did find that "an average Democrat" would easily overtake Trump. But the problem is that an average Democrat can't run. When actual Democratic alternatives are tested, they tend not to perform much better than Biden.

I was dizzy when I saw it, an ordinary Democrat can easily win against Trump if he goes to participate in ***. But neither Biden nor other possible Democratic candidates can win against Trump. What the hell is this???

The ** of the vox article is a report from the Washington Post:

The title of the report is "ominous.""This word, presumably means bad omen. The gist is as follows:

The New York Times survey shows that Donald Trump leads Biden in five of the six swing states surveyed. If those numbers stay the same and both men continue to run, the indicted former ** is likely to return to the White House.

But some have highlighted the potential lifesaver for the Democratic Party. In addition to showing Trump leading by an average of four percentage points, the poll also asked voters what they thought of a campaign without Biden. An "unnamed ordinary Democratic candidate" took the election lead by 12 percentage points, turning the Democrats' 4-point advantage over Trump into an 8-point lead (48 percent to 40 percent).

So,These Democratic political elites are all bullish, but none of them can defeat Trump. On the contrary, a random "anonymous ordinary Democrat" on the street can easily defeat Trump.

It is worthy of being a lighthouse country, and the idea is a hundred years ahead, and I am speechless.

There's more interesting to come. The Washington Post also said that the Democrats should not rejoice too soon. Something similar is the same with the Republican Party.

And what many miss is that an average Democrat isn't the only one who clearly outperforms the actual candidate who might be ahead. The poll also tested a campaign without Trump. The result?The gap also widened by 12 percentage points. The Republican lead widened from an average of 4 percentage points without Trump to an average of 16 percentage points without him, 52-36.

Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. She outscored Trump in ** — and this isn't the first time — extending Trump's 4-point lead over Biden to 8 points.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, right, was once called Trump's "elected" replacement. However, new polls show that he is worse than both Trump (4 percentage points) and Haley (8 percentage points) (leading Biden by an average of 1 percentage point).

It's really unheard of, unheard of. An unnamed ordinary Democrat can beat Trump in ***, neither Biden nor those Democratic elites. An unnamed ordinary Republican could defeat Biden by a landslide than any possible Republican candidate.

It's really a long insight. If this is the case, what kind of internal party primaries will be a waste of resources. A random Democrat on the street is better than Biden, and a random Republican is better than Trump. It's a wonderful world.

Of course, this unnamed ordinary Democrat (Republican) is a virtual scene. Both parties will not pull a random person on the street, let him (she) represent the party in the *** party can definitely stand out in the political elite. But none of the political elites can win the popular support that an "anonymous ordinary person" can get.

On the Chinese Internet, when leftists and establishment members satirize the U.S. election campaign, a commonly used joke is "The United States is the freedom to choose one of the two bubbles of." This paragraph is very exaggerated. But judging from the results of this poll, maybe there is a little bit of that.

In fact, "just pull a Democrat (Republican) from the street to vote for **" is not such an incredible thing. Everyone knows that the origin of Western political civilization is Greece. Aristotle once said:When ** is elected by lot, it is democracy, and when it is elected by election, it is an oligarchy".(”it is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election“ )

Aristotle believed that the draw of lots was more reliable than the ballot. Voting was an important feature of ancient Greek democracy. The ancient Athenians believed that all citizens, (excluding slaves), were equal in all respects, so the majority of Athens ** was determined by lottery, which was the original democracy.

The legislature, the parliament, the judiciary, was chosen by lot among the citizens of Athens. Unlike elections, the draw of lots guarantees equality of results, not just equality of opportunity. Any adult citizen who has not been deprived of citizenship has a chance to be selected as long as he voluntarily participates in the lottery. In Athens, only the public offices of treasurer and general, which required great expertise, were elected.

The picture below is a special lottery machine in Athens, which looks quite reliable.

The city-states of Athens, Rome in the 3rd century BC, and the city-states of Italy in the 11th and 14th centuries all used the lottery to elect their rulers. Until the 18th century, it was widely believed that the lot was the most suitable model for democratic representation.

Montesquieu argued:"Elections by lot are the nature of democracy, and election by ballot is the nature of aristocracy. Drawing lots is a form of election that does not offend anyone, but fills every citizen with the joyful hope of serving his country. ” "the suffrage by lot is natural to democracy, as that by choice is to aristocracy. the suffrage by lot is a method of electing that offends no one, but animates each citizen with the pleasing hope of serving his country."Rousseau likewise believed that democracy could only be represented by drawing lots, and that ballots could only elect the aristocracy.

Even today, there is a mechanism for drawing lots, and in the United States, juries are created by random lottery among eligible citizens. The Green Card Lottery for immigrants is also a lottery mechanism.

The good thing about the lottery allocation is that it is very clearly defined. The difference between victory and defeat is a matter of luck. There is nothing to dispute about the standard. Because the criteria are clear, people who lose are generally willing to gamble.

The disadvantage is also obvious, the lottery mechanism is completely based on luck, and there is a high probability that the most suitable person cannot be selected. But will the ballot be able to choose the right person?

If the American public thinks that the leader elected by ballot is not as good as "an ordinary Democratic (Republican)", then what is the point of ballot election, it is better to draw lots.

If the poll at the beginning of the article reflects the real public opinion in the United States, any Republican can get more popular support than Trump Haley DeSantis, and any Democrat can get more support than Biden Newsom Harris, then, what is the point of the election?

In the most recent survey of global political leaders, only three of the 21 incumbent leaders surveyed had an approval rating greater than 50 percent, and only four had a greater approval rating than a disapproval rating.

The approval rating of the leaders of the G7 countries: Biden of the United States 38%, Trudeau of Canada 32%, Sunak of the United Kingdom 26%, Macron of France 24%, Scholz of Germany 23%, Kishida of Japan 16%. The best is Italy's right-wing Prime Minister Meloni at 44%, and South Korea's Yoon Suk-yeol outside the G7 is only 22%.

Western vote democracy has come so far, and the approval rating of elected political leaders has not even reached 30%. What do you think is the point of this election?

From the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 to the financial crisis in 2008, globalization has created enormous wealth for the world, but it has also created more inequality. The 2016 Trump administration, the 18-year Sino-US war and the 20-year epidemic marked the arrival of the era of de-globalization. Conflicts between and within countries are intensifying.

The U.S. economy is very good in numbers, and in Krugman's words, incredibly good. But the mentality of the American people is still full of complaints and grievances, which makes the Democratic Party and Biden very depressed, and they try their best to tell the people that the economy is good, but to no avail. As for those countries that don't look good in numbers, not to mention the mentality of the common people.

The approval ratings of the leaders of the G7 countries are already ridiculously low. The country and the population are in a situation where they are extremely dissatisfied with the current leader, but there is no alternative. There is no doubt that the American population is very unhappy with Biden, but to be honest, Trump would have been a much worse choice. Vote for Biden because you hate Trump and vice versa. So much so that it appeared, and an ordinary Democrat (Republican) was stronger than Biden (Trump). If 2024 continues to be a showdown between Biden and Trump, the decay of American politics and the frustration of the people will be further exacerbated.

What will happen to the world?In the next 20-30 years, the world as a whole is likely to get worse and worse, and the political system of each country will encounter challenges. However, institutional reform is not an easy task. If we don't reform, we may collapse in the future. Reforms may collapse now.

Obama campaigned on the slogan "change," but did it actually bring any change to the United States?No, if there is, it's worse, it's even worse. The world has entered a stage where it is worse than bad. In the great power competition of the past, the fear of future decline (deterioration) caused a great power to take risks and start a war at a stage when it was not too bad. Today, with nuclear weapons capable of destroying mankind, the losses of war are far greater than in the first half of the twentieth century, and the martial virtues of various countries are far less abundant than in those years. If it starts to rot, there is a high probability that it will continue to rot until it collapses. The Soviet Union is an example, if there is no nuclear ** that can guarantee mutual destruction, there is a high probability that there will be a war before the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it is estimated that World War III would have started long ago in the last century. In the future, the countries that will be able to win in the competition among major powers are those that have a determined strategy, can hold on to the outside world, and can keep a firm grip on the internal pressure, and can always collapse without collapsing. Which country, I don't know, let's wait and see.

100 help plan