Representation by Lottery
I received an e-mail recently from a fellow civil liberties advocate that actually brought to the forefront of my mind a discussion my wife and I have had from time to time. One, oddly enough, that we happen to agree upon despite our somewhat different political views. She's a bit more conservative than I am in some ways, closer to a big "L" Libertarian than a progressive like myself.
Anyway, our discussion goes like this. The United States is coming under the sway of a pseudo-aristocracy made up of--can you guess?--lawyers. Almost all of our elected officials in all three branches of government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, are lawyers.
The vast majority of them come from families with political or monetary influence. And this is becoming more prevalent as time passes. It's hard to avoid. Deals are made, campaigns are financed, and people are recognized more from where they come from than for what they personally represent.
So here's a proposal to change all that. It would never happen, of course, since the Powers That Be (hereafter referred to as the PTB) would never allow it to happen, but it's certainly amusing to consider.
What if members of the House of Representatives weren't chosen by election, but, instead, were chosen by lottery? Only active voters of legitimate age would be eligible, but they might come from any walk of life. They might be white, black, hispanic, asian, wealthy, poor, straight, gay, Christian, Pagan, agnostic, atheist, or whatever. There would be no campaigning and no deceit on their part to gain the seat. They'd be truly representative of the American People.
Sure, you might end up with a couple dummies, or crooks, but, hell, we get those already. Anyone who's actually paying attention would know that. The lottery would occur ever so many years and be staggered slightly, so there'd wouldn't be a complete turnover each time. Say 1/3 of the body would be replaced every four years. They'd receive the compensation due them based upon the position as it stands now. Think of how many lives it could change for the better.
I don't have the exact details of how it might work, but I'm sure something could be figured out.
I'd love to hear a critique of the idea, either positive or negative.
Call me a kook if you want to, but I'm hard pressed to see a downside.
Anyway, our discussion goes like this. The United States is coming under the sway of a pseudo-aristocracy made up of--can you guess?--lawyers. Almost all of our elected officials in all three branches of government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, are lawyers.
The vast majority of them come from families with political or monetary influence. And this is becoming more prevalent as time passes. It's hard to avoid. Deals are made, campaigns are financed, and people are recognized more from where they come from than for what they personally represent.
So here's a proposal to change all that. It would never happen, of course, since the Powers That Be (hereafter referred to as the PTB) would never allow it to happen, but it's certainly amusing to consider.
What if members of the House of Representatives weren't chosen by election, but, instead, were chosen by lottery? Only active voters of legitimate age would be eligible, but they might come from any walk of life. They might be white, black, hispanic, asian, wealthy, poor, straight, gay, Christian, Pagan, agnostic, atheist, or whatever. There would be no campaigning and no deceit on their part to gain the seat. They'd be truly representative of the American People.
Sure, you might end up with a couple dummies, or crooks, but, hell, we get those already. Anyone who's actually paying attention would know that. The lottery would occur ever so many years and be staggered slightly, so there'd wouldn't be a complete turnover each time. Say 1/3 of the body would be replaced every four years. They'd receive the compensation due them based upon the position as it stands now. Think of how many lives it could change for the better.
I don't have the exact details of how it might work, but I'm sure something could be figured out.
I'd love to hear a critique of the idea, either positive or negative.
Call me a kook if you want to, but I'm hard pressed to see a downside.
posted by Saje Williams at 4:59 PM
2 Comments:
Thanks for your feedback on my post "Why America Went To War With Iraq". I'm new to blogging so each comment is still a special event.
I read the book excerpts on your website. They look interesting. I'll try asking my library to order them.
As for your idea about making the House of Representatives by lottery like jury duty, I do have some ideas, both pro and con.
1. Since we know most Congressmen have staff members read the bills and advise them, and the staff is appointed by the Congressman, who would these layman Representatives get to advise them?
2. Bills would probably be shorter and in plain English.
3. Politics has been run by lawyers all along in this country. The system is designed by lawyers. This may give lawyers an advantage in understanding the creation of laws.
4. Just like with jury duty, most people would want to weasel out of serving. After all, who wants to give up 4 years of their career and have to pay for an apartment in DC? And what about the public speaking? Everyone hates public speaking.
5. They'd have to change the way committees are assigned. Seniority is a big factor now, and the committees decide what proposals get floor time.
6. It might work better with a state House of Representatives/Delegates. Many of those are part time anyway.
1. Since we know most Congressmen have staff members read the bills and advise them, and the staff is appointed by the Congressman, who would these layman Representatives get to advise them?
My response: Probably the same people who'd be advising an elected representative.
2. Bills would probably be shorter and in plain English.
My response: Now THAT would be a plus, wouldn't it?
3. Politics has been run by lawyers all along in this country. The system is designed by lawyers. This may give lawyers an advantage in understanding the creation of laws.
My response: With all that experience and tradition, you'd think they'd be better at it, wouldn't you? LOL
4. Just like with jury duty, most people would want to weasel out of serving. After all, who wants to give up 4 years of their career and have to pay for an apartment in DC? And what about the public speaking? Everyone hates public speaking.
My response: Most people? Probably not, considering that the Reps make roughly 10 times what's considered poverty level. Those who make more money would probably balk, but, hey, give 'em an out if they want one. It would be THEIR economic class they'd be hurting if they do.
5. They'd have to change the way committees are assigned. Seniority is a big factor now, and the committees decide what proposals get floor time.
My response: True. But it might be of benefit to the Union to have to work out a new system.
6. It might work better with a state House of Representatives/Delegates. Many of those are part time anyway.
My response: Very true. And it would almost HAVE to start out at this level anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home