Random Elections (Probably NSFW)

CountryPumpkin

I found this article rather stupid:

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/05/st_essay_voting/

The gist of it is that, by selecting voters at random to determine whom is allowed to vote in an election, there's a better representation of the "average American." 

The main problem, of course, is that politicians would try to bribe their way into getting more "random" constituents to vote for them or, God forbid, actually fund infrastructure, education, and voting initiatives in areas where they believe that they'll get votes. That would be far too smart of them, I'll admit, but it would be a lot less shady-looking that Gerrymandering. Not to mention the fact that it implies that no change will occur, since far more people who want things to stay the same will vote (since the average voter nowadays only votes to change things, unless it's a more important [read: well-funded] election*)

What do you guys think? Is it a stupid idea to make elections randomized?

*Source: My ass

ClockworkUniverse

If the randomization is done in such a way that corruption like that could happen, it's done poorly. Well-executed randomization is an interesting idea, though I'm not entirely sure whether I'd support it.

glennmagusharvey

I approve of thread title. >D

Will comment on thread later.