(Ken Silva, Headline USA) The New York Times has been churning out some bizarre opinion articles lately, even by the newspaper’s own standards.
After advocating for black people to leave New York last week, the newspaper published a column Monday that calls for ending elections in the U.S.
The Times’s column comes as polls show Donald Trump dominating the GOP presidential primaries, and running neck-and-neck with incumbent Joe Biden. It also comes weeks after Biden crony Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that he won’t be holding elections next year in Ukraine.
“If we want public office to have integrity, we might be better off eliminating elections altogether,” said columnist Adam Grant, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.
“If you think that sounds anti-democratic, think again,” he added.
Instead of elections, Grant advocated for a system similar to ancient Greece, where some government officials were selected through sortition—a random lottery from a pool of candidates.
To support his argument, Grant cited “social science,” which is highly dubious, given that the vast majority of social studies fail to replicate.
Nevertheless, Grant claimed psychology experiments have shown that “groups actually made smarter decisions when leaders were chosen at random than when they were elected by a group or chosen based on leadership skill.”
The concept of majority rule—as opposed to being anointed by an an elite cabal with no more than the illusion of choice for the hoi polloi—is inherently corrupting, Grant continued.
“When you know you’re picked at random, you don’t experience enough power to be corrupted by it,” he reasoned. “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.’”
However, astute observers were quick to question the motive behind the Times article. With public trust in U.S. institutions at new lows, some questioned whether the powers-at-be are priming the public for the suspension of the 2024 elections.
“Bro. They’re really going to do it,” remarked Compact Magazine writer Malcom Kyeyune. “They’re going to fortify 2024 in the most controversial way possible and then hope that they can seed the narrative that functioning elections aren’t really that important to democracy.”
Bro. They're really going to do it. They're going to fortify 2024 in the most controversial way possible and then hope that they can seed the narrative that functioning elections aren't *really* that important to democracy.
Fellow Yurisisters, It hasn't even begun. https://t.co/ZjoC8MzReu
— Selune Respecter 40K 🇸🇪🤝🇰🇵 (@Tinkzorg) August 22, 2023
And sure enough, political writer Max Meyer noticed that The Atlantic also published an article against elections, on the same day as the New York Times column.
“OH MY GOD THERE’S ONE IN THE ATLANTIC TOO,” Meyer said. “Did a memo go out over the weekend to liberal authors that we must END voting to save ‘democracy?’”
Meyer noted that the leftist push to end elections could be so that the U.S. government can implement unpopular policies related to climate change and other controversial issues.
“It’s interesting that Grant wants to reframe democracy as governance based on ‘what is good for the people’ compared to ‘what the people want,’” he said. “It allows coercive policies like environmentalism based on his notion of what’s good… but what can’t win votes in ELECTIONS.”
As of the publication of this article, the 2024 presidential elections are still scheduled to be held on Nov. 5, 2024.
Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/jd_cashless.
