New York Times OpEd Stated "Elections Are Bad For Democracy"

 

A recent New York Times Opinion piece, originally titled “Elections Are Bad for Democracy,” stated: “If we want public office to have integrity, we might be better off eliminating elections altogether.” The piece was written by Adam Grant, a contributing Opinion writer and an organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

Grant suggested that “democracy” would be better served if candidates were selected by way of randomized lottery, rather than the existing process.

According to Grant, a lottery might help short, meek, and conventionally unsuitable candidates obtain power, while also helping prevent persons with bad personality traits from taking office. (You know, like Donald Trump.) A lottery, Grant says, would provide a fair shot to people who aren’t tall enough or male enough to win.

Those “who aren’t tall enough or male enough to win?” Not tall enough to win? Our fourth president, James Madison, was just 5’, 4” in height. And he was elected twice…both times defeating taller opponents. And who says one has to be male enough to win? We already elected Barack Obama, for crying out loud! Twice! And he’s less macho than his own wife!

 Though I actually agree with a couple of the underlying points in Grant’s article, the original headline The Times attached to it-- “Elections Are Bad for Democracy”-- since altered, is perfectly illustrative of the bizarro world in which we now reside.