Julian Gomez

The "Powerball" episode from Revisionist History podcast was enlightening. I can see the rationalization behind what is being said and I do, to some extent, agree with the points they are making.

Adam Cronkite's three laws are as follows,

1) Many competent individuals are not in elected office because they do not want to run for office, 2) When elected officials are chosen by lottery, the diversity of policies and initiatives is far greater, 3) Voters cannot accurately gauge who the good and bad candidates are. The last law is classified as a universal law.

If we look at our current election system, we can agree that for a person to be elected for office, the person must first run a campaign — Law 1 — that can stretch for months if not a year — Let alone the credibility you must have built the years prior. That rules out an overwhelming majority of people interested in making a change.

To run a campaign you must have connections, partisan affiliations, and money such as Super PACs. If we look at the current presidential election between January 2023 and July 31, 2024, the Harris campaign committee has raised $516.8 million and the Trump campaign committee has raised $268.5 million (1). The point is not who has raised the most but what it takes to run a successful campaign. This is only the presidential election, the same applies for state and local levels.

Now let's look at Law 2, diversity in leadership positions has all been dominated by men, in particular white men. Only recently in the past 20 years have we seen more diversity in these positions, for example, the "SQUAD". We are yet to elect a woman for president. This isn't only a US problem. Mexico recently elected its first woman for president Claudia Sheinbaum, a country with a problem with femicide. There are barriers.

Furthermore, we have major media affiliations, papers, and podcasts such as CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Fox, Reuters, Democracy Now, NYT, Forbes, The New York Post, etc. How are voters to gauge who is going to be a great leader when we are bombarded with political propaganda through various outlets? We love to think of ourselves as rational beings but in reality, we are not, everyone has biases. We identify with one camp or the other and whoever wins the nomination for a partisan group then that's who we are going to vote for.

Even though I agree with Cronkite and the lottery system, when implemented on a national scale it is not the best solution. When a policy change can affect millions of people, we can not leave it up to chance when electing politicians into office. There are many examples in our current political climate that come to mind such as the Affordable Care Act, Student Debt Forgiveness, Roe vs. Wade, Mass Shootings, etc.

On a geopolitical scale, we need a united front. One loose canon is fine but allowing the chance to have multiple can be a problem. Are other nations going to implement a lottery system? We as voters have no control over the political affairs in say China or Russia.

1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/09/06/trump-vs-harris-fundraising-race-harris-reports-raising-nearly-3-times-as-much-as-trump-in-august/