I remember this story I read several years ago. I think it was by David Brin. What I recall most about it was the system the society it featured had for selecting their leader. It was a lottery, and no-one really wanted to "win". It was seen as a civic responsibility, kind of like getting tapped for jury duty, and it was awfully inconvenient for the poor bastard who got selected. Basically, if you got selected, you had all your personal monies seized and held in escrow for your term of office. When you got out of the white house, you got your stuff back, but it was adjusted according to the current state of things. If the people were doing better, you got more. If they were doing worse, you got less. That system's main benefit (I think) was that it ensured that the person in office had a vested, personal interest in seeing to it that things got better. I think that system fits nicely with the "all men are created equal" thing we've got going on over here. It did a fair job of protecting against rigged elections, and saved the money, time and divisive nature of campaigning. There were other branches of government, and a cabinet advisers, kinda like our deal in a lot of ways, but unlike ours, the head honcho was picked by chance, instead of campaigning ability. Personally, I think that the long-term results of a presidential lottery would work out better than the electorate system we have. Or maybe it's just the idea of the office holders have a vested interest in the common good.