The generational succession is VASTLY more predictable than a random one, considering the successor comes from the same house and has literally spent his entire life being groomed and prepared to rule.

We, humanity, have literally ALREADY TRIED THIS.

This isn't some kind of super hypothetical what-if scenario. We have historical records.

It went poorly.

We tried the random thing?

It's not unheard of[1]. Ancient Athens used random selection for many offices and some Italian city-states like Venice and Florence incorporated elements of randomness. A lot of historians think that it did help a lot in reigning in corruption and making it harder for foreign powers to influence their politics.

I think randomly selecting a president is probably a bad idea but randomly selecting a parliament and then having them elect a prime minister from within that group would work well.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

> The generational succession is VASTLY more predictable than a random one

Is it? Plenty of wars have been fought over succession.

Imagine a system whereby you could pole everyone and get a dud leader removed, rather than keep them until they die.

There have been a fair few elections with orderly transitions between governments.

What counterexamples do we have of the random method, to compare? I can’t think of when it’s been tried by a consenting people