Americans Love a Lottery, So Let’s Use it for Representation Reform

By Annalise Rodgers

Think back to high school. Maybe you played sports, were a teacher’s pet, or got way too involved in the drama club. Maybe you even ran for class president, handing out donuts with an attached flyer reading, “Donut delay! Vote for Hannah today!” As early as middle school we are taught the fundamentals of a democratic system. But is this really the best way to represent constituents, either in student body government or the United States government? I write this to argue for a bolder representation system and, although it involves many considerations and longer discussions, the idea of change is fundamental to its success. To begin, the current voting system has a couple of representation issues. One problem is that it severely limits the people who can run for office. These limits are manifested in two ways. The first is that access to some kind of wealth is needed in order to run for office. Either the individual must have enough wealth and resources to distinguish themselves as a philanthropist/public figure or they must have enough wealth to fund their own campaign. The second is that people who want to serve in public office must have the time and energy to run a campaign first. Not only does this limit people who have a family, especially single parents, but also people whose strengths don’t lie in campaigning. Someone may not be particularly charismatic or outgoing but have plenty of skills to be an amazing leader in public office and interact with their constituents one-on-one. Another contributing issue, although mostly a symptom of the two-party system, is that voters are more often than not voting against a candidate rather than voting in support of a candidate. Instead of using a democratic voting system to weigh the representation of each voter equally, this results in greater polarization and less diversified representation in all bodies of government.

I am proposing the use of lottery-style elections. This system is set up so that essentially anyone can put their name down to “run” for a public office. These names are then shuffled and a single person is randomly chosen for the job.

There are three main points of discussion when it comes to representation and lottery- style elections. The first is that voters are no good at determining who will make a great leader. As voters look at candidates, the nuances of bias and social norms play a huge part in influencing our decisions, however objective we believe them to be. Not only have 44/45 US presidents been white men, not to mention 100% of them being men, only two have been shorter than average suggesting that voters find it comforting that their leader match a social norm of masculinity, in this case height. Social norms play into unconscious gender bias, bias against candidates of color, and bias against those in the LGBTQ+ community. Comments on the appearance of women are never made about their male colleagues. The unconscious bias of voters play into social norms which inhibit solid decision-making regarding who will make a strong political leader.

The second discussion point is that lottery-style elections cut out the resources involved in campaigning. Money is a barrier for a large portion of the population, especially those who need representation the most. Generally, this population is mostly made up of people from marginalized groups. Using a lottery-style election would allow people from these communities to think about themselves as leaders differently and have the chance to hold a government position. This is the first step in representing people who have historically been left out due to inequitable systems. The third discussion is around the skills needed to run a campaign. This skillset is different from the skills needed to represent constituents on anything from a school board position to a senate seat. This means that it is possible, and happens, that a candidate can run a solid campaign, reach out to voters, woo them to their side, win the election, and yet do not have as incredible a skillset for actually representing these voters’ needs. Although this system overcomes quite a few barriers, there are a few considerations to make when thinking about its implementation. The first is a conversation around qualifications for submitting yourself as a candidate for the lottery. Do aspiring candidates need a certain level of education or experience to put in their name? This discussion is much longer than can be laid out here however, keep in mind that the current qualifications for running for public office are essentially just access to resources (money, connections, people with high socioeconomic status and influence, etc). A second consideration for implementation is the “buy-in” from voters. When voters cast a ballot they have a personal connection to the winner of that election. Maybe they canvassed for them or upheld their name in a political conversation. Even if they didn’t participate other than fulfilling their civic duty to vote, they still “bought-in” to either voting for a candidate or voting against a candidate. This same confidence would, as a positive and a negative, not exist with a lottery choice. A last note on lottery-style elections is that they change the way the job of an elected public official is viewed. Instead of something a candidate earned (or maybe even felt that they deserved), it becomes more of a privilege. Instead of perpetuating the myth of the American Dream to further representation, it pushes those randomly chosen to rise to the occasion and hold themselves accountable to their constituents. In closing, this is a very different system for representation but our current system is full of problems that inhibit fair representation. It’s no secret that voter suppression and gerrymandering, among other strategies, are used to swing votes for or against candidates. To change this we have to champion bold change: lottery-style elections.