The lack of a criminal record is necessary won’t just commit fraud or accept bribes from day one.
And also overall, people have to accept who is randomly chosen to be the president. Having a criminal with a elementary school education chosen would just lead to riots. It’s one thing if they were elected, but if it’s a choice made by a “random” system then that’s not acceptable.
Or maybe the second person was born into a low income family and is borrowing to invest in their future, and the first person is useless at more than just academics but has a trust fund.
Accredited investor laws are because rich idiots can afford to lose money, not because their judgement is considered superior.
I disagree. I think any criteria for sortition harms it's legitimacy and creates an avenue to disenfranchise large segments of the population.
I am a big fan of sortition though, as I think elections select worse leaders with worse traits than the average citizen while the way we fund elections actively corrupts the few decent leaders we do manage to elect.
Edit: I also wouldn't support inserting sortition directly into our current selection process or ever for selecting a chief executive. Sortition only works if you have enough random picks to get a good representative sample. Otherwise the risks of selecting a massive outlier are to high.
If we didn’t have a minor education requirement (minor because high school is free and is seen as the basic education that everyone has), then an age requirement can be substituted. For example, invoking the current age requirement of 35 to become president if you do not have a high school education so at least we know that you have life experience as a substitute.
As for the criminal requirement, felons already can’t vote and participate in the electoral system so it’s questionable that many would accept felons being “randomly” chosen to lead the country. One could easily imagine and protest that a mafia kingpin who wins office by random chance did so by subverting the lottery. True or not, it’s believable enough to destroy legitimacy and throw the country into chaos.
In some places, yes. This is already viewed as problematic disenfranchisement by many people.
> invoking the current age requirement of 35 to become president
In sortition, your ability to serve in office becomes your "vote". The age requirement of 35 in a sortition system disenfranchises younger voters in a massive way while in our current system it does not.
In sortition, selecting the "good ones" who are in the lottery is just a problematic as selecting the "good ones" who are allowed to vote in elections. While that doesn't mean we should have no restrictions, it does mean those restrictions should face very high levels of scrutiny and be treated as biased by default.
> it’s questionable that many would accept felons being “randomly” chosen to lead the country.
But again, sortition only works well if your sample is large enough to be reliably representative. It won't work well for selecting a president from a nation or selecting 2 senators from an entire state. This is because a sample of size 1 or 2 will always be prone to selecting outliers.
> who wins office by random chance did so by subverting the lottery
The integrity of the lottery, like the integrity of elections, is crucial to it's legitimacy. Our lack of experience with making this sort of selection process transparent, accountable, and hard to subvert is to me the biggest argument against sortition.
I didn't phrase this well. I meant "selecting a highly disproportionate number of outliers" since having a large sample will also have outliers, but but will be much less likely to over represent those outliers in the majority in a significant way.