# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

1. I agree that students would likely be more inclined to participate in a democratic system if it were a lottery rather than a traditional election. I know that I personally never participated in student council, partly because I did not want to run for it/campaign. Although I was not necessarily super shy, I really disliked public speaking, especially the kind that you do when running for a position. By taking out the campaign aspect, it allows for a bigger focus on the actual positions and working on finding solutions for school issues.

2. I also agree that a lottery system could transform elections from a popularity contest into a system that gives everyone a fair chance at being selected. I think that sometimes people are elected solely because of their outward personality or the things they claim they will do while campaigning, and then we later discover they are not who they seemed to be and are not going to do what they said they would. Leaving it up to chance/random selection allows for a smaller focus on first impressions.

1 Disagreement:

1. I disagree with the statement that lotteries would work in any sort of election. I do not think that it would be a good idea for larger/more important elections such as the presidential election, or other political things. Although it could be a good idea for smaller things, especially in schools, I think that some situations would not function well if the candidate is randomly selected.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements:

1. I was pleasantly surprised at the consequence of students who wouldn't have ran for student council had the appointment been decided by democratic election actually growing and excelling in their positions as class leaders, and therefore, I agree with the use of the lottery system in some cases.

2. I also agree with the sentiment that confidence does not equal competence. Most of the time, student council elections are are popularity contests, and so those who are the best at virtue signaling or are known by the most people tend to win.

Disagreements:

1. As much as I was pleasantly surprised by the positive consequences of shyer students winning elections through the lottery system, I feel as though the system has the potential to get out of hand easily. Student who don't actually care about the election might submit a bid as a joke, students could reject the winner due to various reasons, and the power of council might end up in the wrong hands. I would like to see more cases of using the lottery system to elect council members because the system working well one time does not mean it will work every time.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

1. I agree with the overarching premise of the electoral lottery discussed in the podcast. Running FOR office versus running an office really struck a chord with me. We should not place so much weight on a candidate's campaign performance when it just does not align with the duties required of the job itself.

2. I agree with Law #2. "When you choose your student government by lottery, you see a change in the kinds of things the government actually does." To have the diverse collection of perspectives that the lottery provides is so meaningful. I was really inspired by what specific kids in specific schools did to improve their specific communities. The lottery makes it more likely that many views can be considered and prioritized when taking government action.

1 Disagreement:

1. I don't think they quite gave enough credit to charisma and confidence. I agree that there are a lot more important things to weigh when deciding on who will represent the people within the government. But I disagree with the general idea that charisma and confidence don't correlate at least somewhat with effective leadership. A defining part of leadership is to lead others, to inspire and encourage and motivate and guide - there is a place in all of that for charisma and confidence. Maybe those characteristics (skills?) are being wasted on campaign efforts, but surely they are still necessary and useful in many other ways.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreement

·       I agree is that lotteries does create an environment people can express themselves. Though lotteries is a different way of making decisions, especially in a classroom student gets to practice running or leading, which I think is a good practice. In this student get to feel how being involve is important and make the, feel comfortable.

·       I agree that using lotteries can create more participation. Instead of voting from popularities, lotteries is different anyone can run which leads to more people engage and representation making it possible for anyone to lead. This creates a space where everyone have the opportunity not just the one that are wealthy and popular.

Disagreement

·       Although lotteries is a good practice, I disagree that it should be replace for democratic election. Not everyone can be a great leader until they lead before, under the lotteries we can are not determine if they are qualified to lead and our decisions is based mostly on how they present themselves and our feelings which could be 50/50 of having a good leader.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

1. I agree with the idea that traditional election systems often favor popularity and resources rather than true leadership ability. The lottery comparison helped show many capable people are overlooked in these types of systems.

2. I agree with the way it challenges the assumption that voters are naturally good as choosing leaders. That tradition and familiarity often influence decisions more than evidence of competence, which makes me rethink about how leadership is selected.

1 Disagreement:

1. I disagree with the podcast's suggestions that random selection could be better overall solution than elections. The idea of using a lottery system is interesting and could increase representation, but it does not fully address concerns about preparedness, accountability, or consistency in leadership.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements:

1. I agree that traditional elections limit candidates to a select few and limit representation. With regards to presidental elections in the Us, it is also almost exclusively white men that end up in office, which surely does not represent the nation as a whole. A lottery system allows for all candidates to have an equal chance at having a leadership role, exponentially broadening representation.

2. I agree that ideas that affect the population on a large scale should be tested on a smaller scale for efficacy before they are put into motion. Doing this reduces large scale harm while having a relatively low risk in a controlled environment.

Disagreement:

1. I disagree with the podcast in the sense that there are some flaws with the lottery system. There is no method of checking the quality of leaders, just ensuring equal representation, so while we know about the candidates' outward appearance, we know nothing about their personality, goals, prior experience, or leadership skills. This is absolutely essential in large scale elections for powerful positions, hence why in a traditional election the population listen to candidates advocate for themselves and makes a collective decision based on that knowledge.

# data[].attributes.body
2 agreements

One thing from the podcast I agreed with was that normal elections usually favor people who are confident and good at talking in front of others. The loudest or most outgoing person usually gets picked but that does not necessarily mean that they are the best leader.

I also agree that a lottery system could get more people involved. Campaigning takes a lot of time and effort, and some people feel awkward promoting themselves. If part of the process was random, more people might be willing to enter and you could end up hearing ideas from people who normally wouldn't participate.

1 disagreement

I don't think a lottery should fully replace elections because you still want someone prepared and seeking the responsibility of important leadership roles. You could end up with someone who doesn't take it serious or maybe just isn't prepared enough. I think a lottery is better for smaller settings like classrooms.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

1. I agree that choosing leaders is often based on biased opinions that cause us to look past the actual worth of a leader and focus on what they say they can do.

2. campaigning the current way discourages most people from ever running which leads us down the path of candidates repeating whatever will get them the most money.

1 Disagreement

1. that lottery systems are a better way to decide leaders. I disagree because randomness removes the peoples choice from elected leadership positions.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

I agree with the podcast when talking about the lottery system being more fair in classrooms because it encourages all of the students to participate.

I also agree that in elections, those that are loud and confident are more likely to be chosen than those that are quiet and more reserved. I think that people see them as more reliable and able to take action.

1 Disagreement:

I don't think that a lottery system leads to better leaders or a better system. I just think it leads to more diversity and gives more people opportunities that they might not have been able to experience otherwise.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

I agree that a written format allows students reflection time before responding, which allows for introspectiveness and thoughtfulness in their answers.

Instilling a lottery system will provide an opportunity for students who wouldn't normally get the chance to be leaders, the chance to step up.

1 Disagreement:

There are downsides to a lottery system at higher levels, as some students may consciously know that they do not want to be seen as a leader in the classroom setting.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

I agree that it would be a good idea to try out a lottery system election. I'm not sure if it would be effective, but I think it would be a good idea to try it to see if it works better.

I agree that using a lottery system will give more people the opportunity to participate in leading rather than having it only be the most popular people.

Disagreement

I don't think that a lottery system would be effective all of the time because some people will put their name in without actually wanting to be a leader but instead just because it's the thing to do and in that case, the lottery will be less effective than normal elections we have now.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

I agree that combining the approach with Padlet increases participation because everyone has a space to share their opinion.

I agree that using both tools encourages deeper thinking since students must choose a position and explain their reasoning in writing.

I agree that the written format allows students more time to reflect before responding, which can improve the quality of answers.

I agree that seeing classmates’ posts in one place helps build on each other’s ideas and creates a more collaborative discussion.

1 Disagreement:

I disagree that this method always leads to meaningful discussion, because if responses are too short or repetitive, the conversation may lack depth.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

I agree with the podcast when it talked about how at times people tend to vote for the person who seems to know what they are talking about more and the person who seems to have themselves and their ideas and thoughts in order more.

I agree with the fact that a lottery system will give more people that are deserving of being a leader the chance too. Instead of just voting for the biggest and most popular name, it gives a less known person that may be better suited for the job a chance to show what they can do

1 Disagreement

I disagree with the fact that the podcast makes it seem that this type of election with always pick the best leader every time. There is definitely still a chance a not so good leader will end up get chosen but also a chance that a good one could get chosen as well. There is no way to guarantee the best leader gets chosen.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements

I agree with the fact that a lottery system will lead to a more diverse group of leaders, and it is more fair to the people that aren't as outgoing and don't want to campaign or do all the events and speaking.

I also agree with the fact that if they aren't elected and don't put as much work in to be elected and they are elected by luck then they won't treat it as seriously. There is definitely a reward when being elected and it motivates people to do better and prove they were the right choice.

1 Disagreement

I disagree with the fact that this system will work in anything more than the classroom democracy is all about putting the power in the people and that is what people need. Without it I can see disaster as there will definitely be more people angry with administration because it was luck, and they had no voice in the election.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements

I agree that the idea of having lottery elections would help with having diversity. A lot more people would participate and we wouldn’t choose the ‘most famous’. This also gives the opportunity for students to express different points of views and join with others.

I agree that sometimes the well spoken person does not always have the best leadership. Sometimes those who are more quiet or that won’t participate in stuff because they think that if they’re not well spoken that they can’t be a leader, they might have the best ideas.

Disagree

I do not agree that having this type of “lottery” leadership would be beneficial for everyone. We live in a world where not everyone agrees on the same topic. Especially, when we want to decide for our government, I think it would be the worst because not everyone will agree and nothing will go well and nothing will get done.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements:

1. I agree that voters do not know what they want. People don't ever take the time to actually learn about the topics they are electing leaders to represent. They choose the person who seems to be the most "put together," regardless of whether or not they are actually knowledgeable in their content area.

2. I agree that sometimes great leaders are not the most outspoken. I think that good leaders are do-ers while most people who campaign are all talk.

Disagreement:

1. I think that the lottery system will not produce only good leaders like the podcast makes it seem. I think that there is an equally likely chance of a bad leader to get selected as a good one if you are using a truly luck-based lottery system.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

1. I agree that when we are choosing a leader, we typically choose someone who is outgoing, confident, and holds power, which doesn't always indicate what a good leader could be. I think oftentimes this gets us in trouble because this doesn't imply that they will lead us the best out of all the candidates. I think the current system is corrupt in that way and doesn't allow those who may qualify to stand up and go against those other leaders because they wouldn't even try in the first place, like in the podcast how many said they wouldn't have even ran if it was by lottery, assuming the one they are up against has those qualities that we historically and culturally choose, while they may not. I think it also goes deeply into gender roles.

2. I agree that if we choose to do lotteries, we would have much more representation from all our communities and that this would be for the best because we need more diversity that allows people to see new perspectives and learn new things. Otherwise, if we continue to pick from the same pool of people, we are using and reusing the same ideals over and again and not trying to learn and grow, not only individually but as a nation.

1 Disagreement:

1. I think that this would not be plausible in the real world at a larger scale, especially if we were to actually do this randomly and it would take away our ability to choose and this honestly could be very dangerous for our world if we choose leaders this way.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

I would agree that the lottery system would make elections much more diverse. Multiple different groups of people would be represented if a random drawing took place. Leaders from a multitude of social groups allows for new perspectives on issues rather than conventional methods from the same cycle of like-minded individuals.

I also agree that it can be almost impossible to predict who a good leader will be. Leadership is all about opportunity and I think a good leader is someone that embraces opportunity and makes those around them better. No matter if someone is shy, outgoing, popular, or new they have a chance to shine in a role of power. It's not fair to look over anyone when finding a potential leader.

1 Disagreement:

I don't agree with the lottery system if it was to be implemented on a bigger scale. There would need to be restrictions and guidelines in order for it to be proper. For example letting someone enter a lottery who has done no campaigning proves to me that they are not willing to work hard or show effort. I don't believe they should be allowed to enter because of their lack of dedication.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

The podcast highlights how the design of a system can affect a negative outcome. Counting the number of votes or nominated based on popularity significantly influences who wins. Often, the way the system is organized has a major impact on how the final results turn out.

I agree that leadership can’t be judged the same way in every situation. An individual can still be a leader even if they are not as vocal as others. It’s important to give everyone an equal opportunity and not limit someone’s potential simply because they lead differently than those around them.

1 Disagreement:

The lottery system takes away from the public. In traditional elections debates help inform voters and bring attention to key issues. For most, being able to connect with an individual in what they believe in and how they are going to move forward in the future is very important. Bringing different perspectives to everyone making a community among each other. You are not able to make those deep connections in the lottery system.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

1. I agree with the notion of candidates who are praised or rewarded during an election are typically ones who are loud and confident. As confidence is an important aspect of being a leader, that should not be the sole reason for electing someone, as it doesn’t always reflect one’s intelligence or leadership skills. On the other hand, candidates similar to Summer, tend to be overlooked perhaps because their confidence is displayed in what they are actually saying, not so much how they present themselves.

2. I also agree that implementing an election system such as a lottery-type election could bring more diverse candidates to the forefront and possibly create some environments with more efficient leaders.

1 Disagreement:

1. Although I find the lottery system a unique form of electing leaders, I disagree that it is a sufficient form of picking leaders. There may be a case in which someone is a strong leader but does not want to lead or the notion that randomly selecting a leader could convince more shy people to lead isn’t entirely true or effective.

# data[].attributes.body
2 agreements:

I agree that how our elections are currently set up cause "the performers" to win. Being good at campaigning for an election does not actually equate to being a good candidate for the position. These performances can cause us to assume that good speakers and confident answers always mean a candidate is a good fit for the office they are running for.

I agree that random selections can subvert our expectations and show us that people we assumed to be bad leaders can be the most valuable people on a leadership team. Because the pressure to run for office is gone, the person put in office can focus all of their attention on the job at hand.

1 disagreement:

I don't believe that a lottery is the best choice for selecting leaders. For important positions, it is important to select a person who can perform at a high level under intense amounts of pressure 100% of the time. It is important that we know the values and goals of the people we are electing, otherwise the things the general public/people the office is governing won't have their issues solved.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements:

In the podcast, I agree that we are bad at predicting who will be a good leader. Many choose leaders based on their confidence or charisma. For example, in the Unted States, many people will just vote democratic or republican and not even look into who they are voting for. They only vote based on the party they side with. While in the podcast, a randomized selection can make better, capable people in the running.

I also agree with the podcast when it explains that elections can discourage participation. To campaign during an election first requires money and social capital. Then, to become popular among society. When using the lottery system, it lowers the barrier to enter. You do not need the popularity or charisma required during an election. If leadership is open to everyone equally, more diverse backgrounds and personalities would be presented. This would further make the system more inclusive.

Disagreement

Although I agree with a lot of this podcast, there are some disagreements as well. A lot of the episode talks about elections in schools. I don't know if this same way to elect people would work on a larger scale. For example, national governments have a lot more effect on the country. They have to be prepared and motivated to succeed as leaders. Their decisions affect major things like the economy and public safety. To conclude, there are positives but if this idea were to be used on a larger scale it would be a big jump from using the lottery system in schools

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

I agree that elections are just popularity contests. We usually just pick the person who is the loudest or best at talking, even if they aren't actually good at the job.

I also agree that we miss out on great leaders. Many smart, capable people never run for office because they hate the drama of campaigning. A lottery would finally give those quiet leaders a chance.

1 Disagreement:

disagree that anyone can just do these jobs. Some roles are really complicated, and I worry that a random person wouldn't know enough to make big decisions, leaving all the real power to their assistants.

# data[].attributes.body
2 agreements:

I agree that we often mistake charisma and confidence for actual leadership ability. We are naturally drawn to people who speak well and appear self-assured, and we assume that means they will be competent. The podcast made me reflect on how automatic that judgment is, and how often it might lead us to overlook people who lead in quieter but more effective ways.

I also agree that changing the selection system, like introducing a lottery element, can reveal leadership potential in students who would never choose to campaign. It removes the pressure of self-promotion and gives opportunities to people who may not seek attention but are still responsible and capable. That feels like a more inclusive way to think about leadership.

1 disagreement:

I’m not fully convinced that random selection is a good way to choose strong leaders. Leadership requires preparation, judgment, and a willingness to take responsibility, so leaving it only to chance feels uncertain. I would rather see someone step into the role because they actively want it and have shown they are ready for it, not simply because their name was picked.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements

- I do agree with the podcast that, in some ways, the results of lotteries are more equitable than those of an election. To me, the part of the podcast that really shined through was the fact that often the results of an election are more about rewarding the person who is the most confident or well-connected, or who is the most willing to step forward, rather than who is the most representative of the group. I liked the way that the podcast framed this as not really being chaotic at all, but more of a different idea of fairness.

- I also believe in the point that people who are selected by lottery tend to be more cautious in their leadership. The podcast did a good job of showing how if someone does not fight to get into a position of power, then it is instead treated as a burden. It was interesting to note how many of these people who were picked by lottery tended to listen more and ask more questions. It was a good episode that made one question the belief that one must have ambition to be a great leader.

Disagreement

-What did not sit well with me was the podcast's optimism about the wider application of this system. Though all the examples sounded quite convincing, from student councils to smaller communities, I felt this episode didn't give the due weight to how much more complicated larger systems can get: for jobs that affect millions of people, experience, preparation, and accountability mean a great deal, and nothing but mere randomness might be insufficient to do the job. I think that this works better as a supplement to elections and not a full replacement.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

• I do agree that how an election system is set up (who can run, how people are nominated) determines a lot about who ends up in leadership. It’s not always about who would be the best leader, but about who is able to get through the barriers in the first place.
• Traditional elections often also benefit those who are more confident, more well-known, or able to campaign, and this is one area where diversity can be limited and quieter people who should be in top positions kept out.

1 Disagreement:

• I am of the opinion that it would not automatically lead to better leaders to use lotteries. And while lotteries may add some fairness and diversity, leadership still has to happen because of a person’s skills, motivation, and responsibility, and not just the means by which an individual took the position of office.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

I think that podcast did a good job talking about how the system can be set up in different ways. I agree with the way elections will filter out people who are capable before they even start the elections. Its like a restaurant that only accepts people who made reservations 6 months in advance, most great diners don't even get tables and its not cause the food isn't right for them its that the barrier is.

I also agree with how we aren't the best at predicting leadership patterns from performances. NIH scientists weren't able to put scores together to research impact after 75 years of trying. Its kinda like judging a books quality by the cover design but the packaging has nothing to do with the content on the inside.

1 Disagreement:

I disagree that legitimacy matters, not just the outcomes. Frankies point is that people need some sort of sense of agency over who leads them. Its something that is psychologically real.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements:

-I agree with the idea that lotteries allow for more chances of different leaders because many people are reluctant to run because of campaigning but lotteries takes that obstacle away.

-I also agree that diversity and fairness are key to good elections and you’ll find that more through lotteries rather than elections.

Disagreements:

-I disagree with lotteries to an extent because there could be many under qualified people who enter simply because of benefits and not to take on real responsibilities.

# data[].attributes.body
2 agreements:

The traditional voting system allows voters to feel like they had a say as well as the winner feeling "chosen"

I enjoyed the students perspectives, especially the one who introduced the idea of anonymous campaigns that students then get to vote on which then potentially ends in a smaller lottery.

1 disagreement:

I disagree that a lottery system could consistently be a good way of picking leaders. I think it would definitely be interesting to experiment with on a larger scale but like any system it would have flaws.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements:

1. I agree that the podcast effectively shows how lotteries are designed to influence behavior by emphasizing massive jackpots over realistic odds, which explains why so many people continue to play despite the low chance of winning.

2. I also agree with the idea that lotteries disproportionately impact lower-income individuals, since the promise of a life-changing reward can feel more meaningful when financial opportunities are limited.

Disagreement:

1. One point I slightly disagree with is the implication that lottery players are mostly irrational. I think many people are aware of the poor odds but still choose to play occasionally for entertainment or hope, which adds more complexity to the issue.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements:

I agree that traditional elections often favor the same types of people, which can limit diversity and discourage participation from quieter or less confident people.

I agree that using random selection can give more people a chance to participate in leadership and lead to more practical, community focused decisions.

Disagreement:

I disagree that a lottery system could fully replace elections in most real-world settings, because voting for a leader is part of a democracy and our leaders should not be up to random chance.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements:

1. Something that stood out to me in this podcast that I agree with is how people who have creative intentions get snubbed out if there is too much work involved to get to a position they are interested in.

2. I agree that there would definitely be a surge in our government system if multiple people could be picked out in a random draw.

Disagreement

1. I feel that it could be beneficial to choose randomly from a big draft of people. But what if in that slight chance, the lottery picks a lot of people of the same agenda or ideas? Then we get stuck in the same issue we were having before.

# data[].attributes.body
2 agreements:

I think the podcast shows that the way a system is set up, like how people get nominated or how voting works, can really affect who ends up winning. It’s not always just about who’s the most talented or popular, but the structure itself plays a big role in the outcome.

The episode also points out that traditional elections often favor people who are more outgoing or well-known, not always the people who would be the best leaders, because of that, changing how leaders are chosen could help make leadership more fair and representative.

1 disagreement:

I don’t agree that changing the election system automatically leads to better leaders. Even if the process is more fair, leadership still depends on the person’s ability, effort, and commitment not just how they were chosen.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

1. I agree that a lottery will allow the typically shyer students who don't want to run a campaign the opportunity to be a member of the student body.

2. Elections tend to promote the same person winning repeatedly, so for student body president if one student won one year, typically that student will continue to be reelected and take away from other students the opportunity to be student body president.

1 Disagreement:

1. I personally don't believe lotteries are the most reliable way to elect student body members, I think if a person wants that role they should have to break through social anxiety and campaign. Part of being a member of the student body is public speaking, so I think campaigning should be a requirement in order to get the role.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements

1. I do agree with the idea that leadership can be very unpredictable, since even though we might elect someone for a specific position, whether it is from a political standpoint or a general community standpoint, I believe that even if they sound good as a leader and we agree with most of their ideas, they might not be the best as delivering said ideas.

2. I agree that elections are more in favor of who is popular and has status than who has the attributes of a good leader, because even though they might have popularity and connections, they might have an overcompensating ego about them that will not be the best for a leader who has to work well with others to benefit everyone, not just themselves.

Disagreement

1. I do not think that replacing a democratic election with a lottery is the best decision, because we cannot see who is and isn't qualified to make decisions for everyone else and if a big decision like this is just given to anyone, everyone will weep the consequences and I feel like this takes away from some people who actually work hard for a leadership position and have good ideas on how to lead a group of people.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements
1. I agree that elections often reward popularity and status more than actual leadership ability. Just because someone is charismatic, wealthy, or a strong speaker doesn’t mean they will make good decisions or work well with others. A lot of times the best leaders aren’t the loudest or most visible ones, so the current system can overlook people who might actually be more effective.

2. I also agree that alternative systems like lotteries could increase participation and diversity. Some people who would be great leaders never run because campaigning costs money or requires connections. A lottery style or mixed system could give more everyday people a chance and bring in different perspectives instead of the same types of candidates every time.

Disagreement

1. However, I disagree that leadership positions should rely mostly on random selection. For high stakes roles, like government leadership, experience, preparation, and qualifications matter a lot. Choosing someone randomly could put unprepared people in important positions and create unnecessary risk. I think voting is still important so people can evaluate candidates’ skills and goals.

# data[].attributes.body
2 agreements

I agree on how predicting who will be a good leader is flawed. This is because it's difficult to counter the bias of choosing someone based on how they present themselves, their charisma, and how well spoken they are. They could be putting up a persona to reel in their audience. Another thing is that someone could not be presenting themselves the way you expect them to, but could actually embody everything that a good leader is. Their shyness could be the thing that's holding them back.

Another thing is how running for an office and running an office are two very different things. Running for office is about big ideas and convincing others that you are what they want as a leader. Actually running it consists of actually doing the work and committing to everything that the role involves. It's more about doing rather than appearing. Even though they both consist of the same concept, they require different things.

1 disagreement

They stated in the podcast that it's easier to teach a shy or not-so-popular kid and add leadership skills to their skill set than teach a confident, charismatic kid who will need to set aside their ego and not dominate the conversation. I disagree with this because it's biased to think that way. A confident child is also able to be taught easily because of their willingness to talk and share which could help the instructor connect to their student more easily. I think the personality of a student doesn't define the ease of instruction.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements:

1. Leadership positions chosen through elections don’t always go to the most capable individuals. Instead, the process often favors those with strong social presence, recognition, or popularity. While these qualities can help someone gain votes, they don’t necessarily reflect the skills required to lead effectively, such as problem-solving, responsibility, and the ability to support others. This can result in leaders who are successful at gaining approval but less prepared to handle the demands of the role.

2. I think a lottery system can encourage more participation by giving opportunities to people who might not usually run for leadership roles. Without the pressure of campaigning or needing to be popular, more individuals may feel comfortable stepping forward, which could lead to a wider range of perspectives and ideas being represented.

Disagreement:

1. For roles that carry a lot of responsibility, I don't think that random selection is the best approach. Leadership at that level requires years of experience and leaving it up to chance could create problems. In my option voting matters because it allows people to think critically about who is actually capable of handling the role and it also gives those who are running an equal chance instead of being randomly selected.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements

I would agree that it would allow more people to enter their names in the election. It would make more people who aren't as popular or outgoing run for election and have a better chance of winning.

I also agree with the idea that we can not predict leadership. People have no idea how someone would react to different scenarios. This gives everyone an equal playing field, and oftentimes the best leaders are the ones you wouldn't expect or vote for.

Disagreement

In my opinion, I think that if this were implemented on a bigger scale, people would not be happy. A candidate would be picked basically by luck, and this would take away from any say that a voter has in an election.

# data[].attributes.body
Agreements

- That emotions like hope and excitement matter more to people than mathematical odds. The episode connects the lottery to human behavior in a clear and interesting way and helped me think differently about probability and real life decision making.

- The Powerball lottery is designed to capture attention and create excitement rather than encourage logical thinking. The episode does a strong job connecting the lottery to human behavior and explaining why people are drawn to big rewards despite the risks.

Disagreement

- A weakness of the episode is that it does not focus much on the negative effects of lotteries, especially for people who spend money they cannot afford. I also think the low odds are treated too casually, and the episode would be stronger with more discussion about responsibility and community impact.

# data[].attributes.body
1) I think a blind voting or lotery process would be helpful (specifically the hybrid of the two) now, at least in america, we are entriely too focused on what party a politician belongs to and almost not at all on their actual character or the policies they may intact. I have actually heard the words " I don't actually agree with what he says, but he's a [enter political party] so I am going to vote for him [because that is 'my' political party'"

2) I agree that people are bad at picking who can be good leaders. Just because someone is good at being a mouth piece and seems very charasmatic person on the surface doesn't mean they will be an effective leader or be able to play well with others.

disagreement:

Lotteries are a good option for all elections; ultiimately in america the way our values mostly align, many people would not respect a president elected solely on lottery. I personally think that we should do blind elections. Candidates are represented by their beliefs and things they will bring to the table. There would also be dosiers of their professional connections and what things they have the most personal/selfish stake in. No parties, no big flashy campaigns. Let us do away with the popularity contest version of elections.

# data[].attributes.body
2 agreements.

People would be much more inclined to enter into an election if it was a lottery rather than a campaign. I believe that to be true about myself and listening to Cronkright talk about the students agree made me think most people are like minded in that aspect.

while super confident, well spoken people can make good leaders, I agreed that that type of person is not always the best candidate for a leadership role, sometimes they can let their ego get the best of them and make teamwork and open mindedness hard.

1 Disagreement

Lotteries are a good option for every election. I think if this lottery was implemented into any sort of high prestige presidential or governmental election, the people(voters) would not agree and would deem it to risky.

# data[].attributes.body
Gianna Sachs

2 Agreements:

1. I do not think that everyone who wants power should have it. I know campaigning is very expensive which means only people of certain class can get their name out effectively. But just because someone has money does not mean they should win

2. I also agree that lotteries encourage more participation because more people would run because they do not have to campaign or win any votes. I think this would also bring more minorities and create a more diverse space.

1 Disagreement

1. We are bad at predicting leaders. I think as a society we have a pretty good understanding of who is going to win based off their status, campaigning, following and speeches.

# data[].attributes.body
2 Agreements:

Elections can often reward popularity and status over actual ability to lead. (I believe these features don't contribute to success within role, but they're often what reward it)

Lotteries can increase participation by including people who wouldn’t normally run. (I believe people who would be amazing in certain positions, don't always run because of the process of speeches and nominations)

1 Disagreement:

That lotteries for more high-stakes leadership, would be beneficial. (I believe it would weaken accountability and be too high-risk)

# data[].attributes.body
2 agreements:

I do not think that everyone who wants power should have it. Just because people want the power doesn't necessarily make them a good leader. This is why campaigning and elections are so important so people can hear what people running for power will do. When they hear different campaigns they can then decide what will be best.

I also think that rotating leadership would help prevent power from staying in the same hands. If the same person is in power all the time there is no different perspective being taken action on. If you rotate the leadership this will allow for different views and action steps to take place, fulfilling more people.

1 disagreement:

I do not think random selection creates good leadership and is reliable. Leading takes skill and experience, so it is risky to leave it up to chance. Rather have someone be chosen because they want to and are capable and not because they were forced to.

# data[].attributes.body
2 agreements:

1. I agree that influence can sometimes have more of a say in who gets elected than who the right person for the job is. This can sometimes be good when people vote for someone they know will hear out their issues. It can also be not so good when the person turns out to not be a good leader and causes more issues to arise.

2. I also agree that lotteries would get more people to run and have a bigger range of diversity. Having more diversity amongst candidates can give new insights and perspectives. It can also help more people feel better represented.

1 disagreement:

1. Having a lottery style election takes away from the democratic process which makes people feel like they have a say. Feeling like you have a voice is very important.