Recent decades have seen extensive research into the historical virtues and disadvantages of random selection or the lottery and how these might be adopted to address the shortcomings of modern institutions democratic, to the extent that the question of whether the lottery is a democratic institution has given rise to much debate and deliberation. In this article I will argue that the lottery is not a democratic institution by discussing my view of what democracy is, summarizing the main advantages of selection and arguing that there are no democratic elements in a lottery. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In his article “The Original Meaning of Democracy,” Ober (2008) states that democracy is “the collective capacity of a public to do good” things happen in the public sphere.” The word democracy comes from two Greek words, “demos” meaning people and “kratos” meaning power. Democracy can be classified into two types: representative democracy and direct democracy. At its most basic level, representative democracy is a system in which citizens elect government officials to represent their interests. According to Sorensen (1993) representative democracy is a system of “a highly inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders and policies, at least through regular and fair elections, such that no large social group is excluded”. Direct democracy, in contrast, is characterized by citizens' direct participation in the decision-making process by voting on issues and proposals rather than by officials representing them. The lottery was introduced as a means of selecting candidates for the Council or boule and the courts. and facilitated descriptive representation, i.e. the participation of individuals from traditionally excluded contexts (Headlam, 1993). The phenomenon is known as lottery and denotes the random selection of citizens for public office (Engelstad, 1989; Stone, 2012). The aim was to facilitate the prevention of corruption of power and rule (Walzer, 1983) through randomly selected citizens so that the chances of a charismatic tyrant taking power were very low. To further strengthen the transparency of the institution, the assembly saw its members participate in “equal rotation” each year (Goodwin 2005). Although lottery can be considered to have many plausible advantages, it is important to understand its disadvantages for the democratic process. . First, random selection reduces the chances of selecting highly qualified and motivated officials and allows candidates with little or no experience to insert themselves into the decision-making process, which could lead to inefficiency in government. Second, with random selection at its core, there is a danger of admitting into that process a group or individual whose views would not reflect the population they are intended to represent, which could disturb the legitimacy of the selection process and the “ consent of the governed". Closely linked to “fair rotation” or random selection is the question of enthusiasm or lack of enthusiasm for the often complex workload associated with the new role an individual or group has taken on defending their constituency. In representative democracy, politically ambitious individuals or groups would show their leadership and take action on issues related to public accountability, thus representing their constituents. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now..