Our default method for promotion—open competition—is flawed because it disproportionately attracts and rewards individuals who most desire power, not necessarily those best suited for leadership. The Founding Fathers understood this, preferring reluctant leaders. Alternative models, like deliberation by a select body, can produce more competent and less self-interested leaders.

Contrary to the popular belief that power corrupts, research suggests it acts as an amplifier. If a person is already "pro-social"—oriented towards helping others—power can increase their empathy and effectiveness. If they are selfish, power will magnify those negative traits.

Companies often cannot differentiate between healthy confidence and narcissism. Narcissistic individuals excel at self-promotion and appearing decisive, which are frequently misidentified as leadership qualities, leading to their accelerated advancement over more competent but less self-aggrandizing peers.

The perception of a deeply divided society is largely an artifact of a political system built on competition and elections, which forces people into two opposing camps. A system based on deliberation would reveal that most people's views are not so rigidly coherent, and it would encourage finding common ground rather than winning at all costs.

Seemingly irrational political decisions can be understood by applying a simple filter: politicians will say or do whatever they believe is necessary to get reelected. This framework decodes behavior better than assuming action is based on principle or for the public good.

Viewing politicians as athletes in a game reveals their true motivation: gaining and retaining power. This framework explains seemingly inconsistent actions, like flip-flopping, as strategic plays for short-term public sentiment rather than reflections of moral conviction or long-term vision.

The Catholic Church's method of selecting a Pope—a secret, deliberative process where cardinals vote repeatedly until a supermajority is reached—is a powerful example of an "election without candidates." This bottom-up meritocracy prioritizes finding a formidable, consensus candidate over rewarding the person who campaigned the hardest, a model that could be adapted for political and organizational leadership.

The ruling "laptop class" isn't composed of the most intelligent people (150+ IQ) but rather the "midwits" (around 110 IQ) who excel at social games and navigating bureaucracy. This challenges the meritocratic assumption that pure intellect dictates power and leadership.

When leaders are chosen by lottery instead of election, they are less likely to feel they are "the chosen one." This fosters a sense of duty, humility, and servant leadership because they recognize their position is due to chance, not special merit. This structure serves as a protective mechanism against the selfishness and hubris often seen in politics.