A “perfect” voting system
Random numbers in election systems are an absolute no-go.<p>Suppose that a court rules that one district must be re-counted, and based on the result there will be a new, random candidate.<p>This creates incentives for going after re-countings if your political opponent has won the lottery, not because the result will be much different, but simply because you get a second chance in the lottery.<p>It boils down to the thought that repeatability is import for fairness. Somebody claims that your DNA is identical to the one collected from the crime scene? You can make a second test and verify the first one. You think you have been treated unfair in court? You can repeated the trial at a higher court. All the doping tests in sports are verified by repetition.<p>The list is nearly endless. Even if a random experiment does treat you fair, you can't known.<p>The second point is that randomness only creates the appearance of fairness on the large scale, single individual still get treated unfair.