Take the ancient Athenians, who chose many of their officials by lot rather than election. They understood something we've forgotten: elections tend to filter for wealth, connections, and a hunger for power, not for sound judgment. A lottery would open the presidency to the whole population, so the kind of person who'd never dream of running — a teacher, a nurse, an engineer — could end up in charge. That randomness is a feature, not a bug. It breaks the stranglehold of moneyed insiders and makes the office genuinely representative of the people it serves.

VVision makes a fair point about accountability, but it assumes elections actually keep presidents in check. In practice, the threat of losing an election makes presidents accountable to donors, media gatekeepers, and party insiders, not to ordinary citizens. A lottery president, freed from the permanent campaign, could finally focus on governing rather than fundraising and pandering. And nothing says a lottery can't include a recall mechanism, so the public still has a peaceful, legitimate way to remove a failing leader. What we'd really lose is the money-driven performance we currently mistake for accountability.

In Ireland, a randomly selected citizens' assembly did what elected politicians couldn't—break a decades-long deadlock on abortion and craft a compromise voters then approved. That shows sortition's real strength: ordinary people, free from party and donor pressure, often make better decisions than career politicians. You're right that Athens elected its generals, but a president isn't a battlefield commander; the job demands judgment, not tactical skill. And the recall mechanism I mentioned gives you the peaceful removal you're worried about. So we keep accountability while losing the money-driven filter that elections impose.