NYT Op-Ed Claims Elections ‘Harm Democracy,’ Alters Title Amid Online Ridicule

The‌ New York⁢ Times published an op-ed ⁤this ‍week declaring elections are “bad for democracy.”

“[W]e might​ be better off eliminating elections altogether,” argued Adam ⁤Grant, a‌ psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, ⁢in the piece, which ‌subsequently had ⁣its headline changed from “Elections are Bad for⁤ Democracy” to “The ‌Worst People⁣ Run for Office. ‍It’s Time for a Better Way,” hours ‍after⁢ publication following ⁣ online mockery.‍ Despite the new title, the message remained unchanged.

According ⁣to Grant, elections are counterproductive to democratic governance. ⁢Grant claimed that randomly ⁤chosen​ leaders would be more effective and​ cited ancient Greece as his prime​ example, ⁤as if ⁢ruling ​an ancient city-state were comparable to managing global affairs in the 21st century.

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?

“When ‌you know you’re ‍picked at random, you don’t experience enough power⁢ to be corrupted by ⁢it,” Grant added. “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.“

If the ​author had ever examined the histories of‌ recent lottery winners, he might rethink that claim. Lottery ‍winners are more likely to declare bankruptcy than the ‌average American within‍ three ⁢to five years of winning, with nearly ​a third ⁢eventually doing so, according to Next Gen Personal Finance.‌ Money — like power —‍ goes to ​people’s heads.

While acknowledging random selection might “deprive⁢ us of the chance to select a leader with distinctive skills,”⁢ Grant was‍ clear: “that’s a ‌risk I’m willing to take.”

Grant made his “final” point that “voting also means no boundaries to gerrymander and no ​Electoral College to dispute.” In other words, no‌ more objections to election results. Odd‍ that this proposal would come two years after President Donald Trump raised ‌concerns over how the ⁤2020 presidential election was⁣ conducted instead of following Democrats’ objections in 2001,​ 2005, ‌and 2017.

“Instead of questioning whether millions of ballots were ‌counted accurately, we could watch ‍the lottery live, just as we do with ​teams getting their lottery picks in the N.B.A. draft,” ​Grant wrote.

He ‌warned against using elections “to roll the dice on‌ the hopes ‍of finding the best” candidates, ⁣as if the lottery system he proposes were not a way to ‍“roll the ‌dice” ​on who oversees ⁤one of the largest enterprises in human history: the ⁢federal government.

The ​proposal to‌ eliminate elections altogether for the sake of “democracy” further goes to show that ⁣“bad for democracy” means‌ anything left-wing activists don’t like, from particular candidates​ to free speech, the Electoral ⁢College, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

[READ:[READ:Here Is ​Everything Democrats​ Claim Is ‘A Threat To ⁣Democracy’]

Other entries in ​the Times op-ed pages have joined the pile-on too, smearing Republican​ leadership as antithetical ‍to “democracy.”

“The Republican Party Is the Anti-Democracy Party,” read an August 2022 headline.

“Inside‍ the⁤ Completely Legal G.O.P. Plot to Destroy American Democracy,” read⁢ another from last September.

Meanwhile​ leftists, who apparently have free reign ​to call ‌for completely abolishing elections, have chastized any Republicans raising concerns‌ about election ⁢administration as “election deniers.”

But Republicans ⁢aren’t the ones who are advocating to deny Americans free and ‌fair elections⁣ in the name​ of “democracy.” Nor are⁣ they the ones who exploited lockdown-era panic measures‌ to⁣ remove legal election safeguards ‌and jeopardize confidence⁣ in American ‌elections. It’s not elections⁢ that are “bad for democracy.” It’s the⁢ fight to eliminate them,⁤ whether ‌by dismantling election laws or siccing ⁢the ‌feds on the top political opponent of the​ incumbent​ regime.

[READ:[READ:Putin Handed His Political Rival A Lighter Sentence Than⁢ Biden‍ Wants To Give⁤ Trump]