Many people are saying that there is something wrong with the way we select our President. We now have a paranoid, unstable, incompetent narcissist as President, and people wonder what is wrong with our process that we could wind up with someone so clearly incapable of holding the office.  The fact that he fell nearly 3 million votes short in the popular vote but still won the Electoral College has caused some to say we should do away with the Electoral College and just rely on the popular vote.

Such a move would not get rid of all the problems with our election process, however.  We’d still have excessively long campaigns, with their omnipresent ads and news coverage saturating the airwaves and internet.  Moreover, candidates would still be obsessed with raising huge sums of money and would be beholden to those who contribute large amounts to them.

A fairer — and cleaner — way to select a president would be a totally random process.  Everybody loves to play the lottery.  The prize here would be incredible power and room and board for 4 years, accompanied by extensive travel benefits, and the trappings of fame and glory.  By selecting someone randomly, moreover, we would avoid the current danger that only self-centered egomaniacs seek the job.

Previously opponents of the idea might have argued that such a process could result in a whacko, ignorant, lazy individual being selected, but now no one can seriously claim that our current process is effective in guarding against that danger.

There would likely be widespread support among young and old for this system.  Older Americans would remember that we once selected our military personnel this way.  Younger Americans are familiar with the process as used in the Hunger Games.

Random selection works for nature, so why not for President?