The Worst People Run for Office. It’s Time for a Better Way.

Aug. 21, 2023 By Adam Grant

On the eve of the first debate of the 2024 presidential race, trust in
government is rivaling historic lows. Officials have been working hard to
safeguard elections and assure citizens of their integrity. But if we want
public office to have integrity, we might be better off eliminating
elections altogether.

If you think that sounds anti-democratic, think again. The ancient Greeks
invented democracy, and in Athens many government officials were selected
through sortition — a random lottery from a pool of candidates. In the
United States, we already use a version of a lottery to select jurors.
What if we did the same with mayors, governors, legislators, justices and
even presidents?

People expect leaders chosen at random to be less effective than those
picked systematically. But in multiple experiments led by the 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 skill.

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.

…

A lottery would also improve our odds of avoiding the worst candidates in
the first place. When it comes to character, our elected officials aren’t
exactly crushing it. To paraphrase William F. Buckley Jr., I’d rather be
governed by the first 535 people in the phone book. That’s because the
people most drawn to power are usually the least fit to wield it.

The most dangerous traits in a leader are what psychologists call the dark
triad of personality traits: _narcissism, Machiavellianism and_
_psychopathy_. What these traits share is a willingness to exploit others
for personal gain. People with dark triad traits tend to be more
politically ambitious — they’re attracted to authority for its own sake.
But we often fall under their spell. Is that you, George Santos?

…

In a study of elections worldwide, candidates who were rated by experts as
having high psychopathy scores actually did better at the ballot box. In
the United States, presidents assessed as having psychopathic and
narcissistic tendencies were more persuasive with the public than their
peers. A common explanation is that they’re masters of fearless dominance
and superficial charm, and we mistake their confidence for competence.
Sadly, it starts early: Even kids who display narcissistic personality
traits get more leadership nominations and claim to be better leaders.
(They aren’t.)

If the dark triad wins an election, we all lose. When psychologists rated
the first 42 American presidents, the narcissists were more likely to take
reckless risks, make unethical decisions and get impeached. Add a dash of
Machiavellianism and a pinch of psychopathy, and you get autocrats like
Putin, Erdogan, Orban and Duterte.

…

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/opinion/elections-democracy.html

--
«地 球 誕 生 在 牛 市 的 小 時 — Earth is born in the Bull's hour»