Early in my teaching career, I was a freshman class advisor. The class had been charged with electing two representatives to the student council. Typically, my experience in such matters had been to observe such a group nominate individuals, have them give what usually amounted to bogus,
non sequitur speeches with empty campaign promises – pretty much like the real thing. Then, each kid would vote either with a blind who of hands or on little paper slips provided by the teachers. This particular day, however, I observed something very different. The students went through a nominating process that was a bit distinctive. There were plenty of withdrawals of students who stated they did not feel prepared to lead at this time. Others claimed they would have insufficient time; and, while flattered by the thought, would prefer to wait until next year when they wouldn't be involved in the school play, for example. Occasionally, a person would get nominated and the nomination would be challenged as in, "Really, Reggie, you want to run? You never turned in a single assignment on time last year, how are we to believe you will go to meetings and represent us well?" Usually, Reggie would then decline. This group new itself pretty well. After the nomination slate was closed, the nominees all spoke impromptu. They had no time to mince words or manipulate truth. Undoubtedly, some had hoped to be nominated, maybe they even campaigned, explaining why they were more dressed up than their counterparts. The speeches considering they were high school 9th graders were surprisingly eloquent for being off the cuff.
After the speeches were concluded, a vote was held. The votes were all placed in a bucket. The teachers sorted them by piles. I was just about to announce the winner based on pile size when another teacher told me to hold on. She then took one slip from each pile that had at least one vote, and there were four, and put them back in the bucket. She announced to the students, "Ok, four of your nominees have been determined by the group to be eligible candidates. The winner will now be drawn at random from the bucket." She handed it over to me, and I drew out a name. I handed the slip over to her, and she read off the winner. I sat down astonished at what just happened. I'd never seen anything like it.
Gone were the elements of brazen campaigning as a nominee needed to have only two votes to go into the bucket. Gone were the intangibles such as height and previous history and so on. Fate and random luck determined the winner from the eligible pool. Campaign promises were irrelevant because there was clearly no way to guarantee them. Even if every person voted for one candidate (in which case there would have been a re-vote). The winner was beholden, in a way to everyone instead of just those who voted for him or her. I thought this was simply brilliant and the most compelling way to select a leader I'd ever observed.
I wondered if it could have applications beyond this 9th grade class governance. Could we determine out governors, representatives, senators, and even our president the same way. Could we come up with a nomination process that would put the very best political minds we have in our nation into a hat and draw out the winning name? Maybe you have to take an exam? Maybe you have to survive a Mark Burnett-created reality show that reveals all your hidden character traits. Maybe you have give a few off the cuff speeches in front of people who know you too well like your cousin, 2nd grade teacher, middle school counselor, college roommates, and so on. Then, once you have survived and achieved the all-important nomination, you go into the hat with the other nominees to see who gets votes. Maybe you have a higher threshold than two. Maybe you need 10% of the vote to survive this stage. Then, the rest is up to fate. Your name goes into the hat with the other countless survivors and a winner is drawn out.
Well, it couldn't be a worse thing to try than our current system.