“The Elections Are Bad for Democracy” by David Leonhardt in The New York Times argues that the way we elect our leaders in the United States is undermining democracy. He cites several factors, including gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the increasing power of money in politics, as evidence of this.
Leonhardt argues that gerrymandering, the practice of drawing electoral districts to favor one party or candidate, has made it more difficult for people to elect the representatives they want. He also writes that voter suppression laws, such as those that make it harder to register to vote or to cast a ballot, have made it more difficult for people to participate in elections. And he says that the increasing power of money in politics has given wealthy donors undue influence over elections.
Here are some of the reasons why I think Adam Grant is wrong about elections being bad for democracy:
- Elections are a fundamental part of democracy. They are the way that we choose our leaders and hold them accountable. Without elections, there would be no way to ensure that the government represents the will of the people.
- Elections can help to promote compromise and moderation. When candidates have to appeal to a broad range of voters, they are more likely to adopt moderate positions. This can help to prevent gridlock and extremism.
- Elections can help to educate voters. When people are exposed to different viewpoints and candidates, they are more likely to be informed about the issues. This can lead to better decision-making.
- Elections can help to build trust in government. When people believe that their votes matter, they are more likely to trust the government. This can help to strengthen democracy.
Of course, no electoral system is perfect. The current system in the United States has its problems, and there are certainly reforms that could be made. But I believe that elections are still the best way to choose our leaders and to ensure that democracy thrives.
I believe that Adam Grant is wrong to say that elections are bad for democracy. Elections are a fundamental part of democracy, and they can help to promote compromise, moderation, education, and trust. While there are certainly problems with the current system, there are also ways to address these problems. I believe that elections are still the best way to choose our leaders and to ensure that democracy thrives.
To learn more about This joke of an article read this from The New York Times. An excerpt of the article has been copied below:
People expect leaders chosen at random to be less effective than those picked systematically. But in multiple experiments led by psychologist Alexander Haslam, the opposite held true. Groups actually made smarter decisions when leaders were chosen at random than when they were elected by a group or chosen based on leadership skills.
Why were randomly chosen leaders more effective? They led more democratically. “Systematically selected leaders can undermine group goals,” Dr. Haslam and his colleagues suggest because they have a tendency to “assert their personal superiority.” When you’re anointed by the group, it can quickly go to your head: I’m the chosen one.
When you know you’re picked at random, you don’t experience enough power to be corrupted by it. Instead, you feel a heightened sense of responsibility: I did nothing to earn this, so I need to make sure I represent the group well. And in one of the Haslam experiments, when a leader was picked at random, members were more likely to stand by the group’s decisions.
Over the past year I’ve floated the idea of sortition with a number of current members of Congress. Their immediate concern is ability: How do we make sure that citizens chosen randomly are capable of governing?