In the search for how to make voting easier so that we will
get a government that more fully represents the people, I looked into many
ideas, including the good, the bad, and the outright radical.
In the search, I stumbled upon a journalist working in Detroit.
When describing his feelings about voting on the internet, he expressed worry
about what it could lead to, “#DownTheRabbitHole” has he put it. Opening voting
up to the internet could easily lead to politicians taking control of the
voting process. This is a valid concern, but is it all that different from the
idea that there are politicians today tinkering with the voting process?
In communicating with an analyst in Denver, I discovered a
much more radical solution. Dissolve the legislative branch of the government,
and draw a random sample of citizens each year to fill those seats. Statisticians
would love the idea, for this “sample” would be the best estimation of the “population”
that is possible. If your name is drawn out of a randomization process, you go
work for the government in deciding legislation.
This would lead to a government that, statistically speaking
at least, would be a better representation of the people—which is exactly what
we would be trying to do with enabling voting online. Its feasibility, however,
remains an issue. What will the future hold? I suppose it is up to us, but we
need to vote to make it happen.
This makes me think of dogmas about politics that many americans live by. We don't realize that the power is really in the people. Maybe we don't think it's worth the time to participate in our government but everything I learned in American Heritage showed me how little I knew about what I could do in government and how the way citizens interact with and within government can shape it in good and very bad ways. I almost think that the idea you presented is better than dealing with all the politics in politics.
ReplyDeleteWhat an interesting idea. It is, however, "much more radical." I think of the idea--dogma, you could even call it--that the founding fathers had of selecting the intelligent leaders from the population in order to protect the country from mob rule. They didn't want to "fully represent" the people. They wanted a watered down, not-so-crazy, check-and-balance type of elitism. So...is that a belief that still exists? Do we really want "the average American" to be in government? But how can we combat "the politics in politics" any other way?
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that america is a nation that can afford to be led by civilians. I think that we have a republic because we want a stronger central authority to regulate and control such a massive and diverse population. I fear a civilian legislature more than an elected one. Those civilians could do anything that they wanted and if we randomly selected a group that was not so representative of america's diverse population and they oppressed the majority, I think that things would go really sour.
ReplyDeleteHow could our system be any more sour than it is today? The recently elected crop is no more representative of America than the last one was. Whoops the legislative group is largely the last one, and the next one will largely be this one.
DeleteWhy is this? Because most House Districts have been carefully drawn by the two parties to continually elect one or the other as the precinct is -- liberal keep the Dems in, conservative gotta go with those Repubs. In these districts, we would sooner keep returning somebody we don't like rather than empower the other party within that district. Look around, and you will see that this is true.
How then do we correct this? Fewer elections, but more representation. The current House is largely white male, or female with Blacks being voted in from Black minority districts and Hispanics coming from those districts. Sure, over time some Districts change, Downtowns becoming more upscale, close in becoming the new low income minority districts, then the suburbs that are gradually becoming more integrated. The point being, before the election is even held, we know who will be over 90% of the new crop.
Give up on ever voting in representation. Select new representatives from the Districts on a random basis and you will get representative government. But first a few safety valves need to be installed.
1.)No new taxes or tax rates without a vote of the people. This way, the people still retain the power of the checkbook.
2.)Allow the representatives to change the various department budgets, and within that budget, the various entity budgets but no entity budget can go up or down by more than 10% annually. This way, you will retain the core of various entitites despite the current legislative make up, but multiple legislatures over a 10 year period could kill off an entity if it is truly not in favor with the public.
3.)Certain functions such as the Military, the FBI, the State Dept, and the IRS would be deemed critical entities, and could not have their budgets reduced below a floor level -- say 75% of current levels.
4.) legislative staff would of necessity take on an expanded role. They would need substantive raises to encourage them to be career employees. in exchange for higher pay, and more power, they would be prohibited from joining any consulting service regarding their agency for 10 years, and being audited by the IRS every year to see if any new revenue streams pop up.
5.)Those selected to be the legislators would need to be highly compensated to help ensure they are not being bribed. Washington is an expensive city to live in, therefore their house would be owned by the District they represent, They would be guaranteed their old job back after completing their Legislative Service. Top notch people would be hired to run their businesses for those who are self employed. The Legislators would also be subject to audit for the next 5 years.
For the first 10 years, this system could be tried out seeing how it works within the House, with the Senate still elected. At the close of that time, a national referendum would be held to see if the public wants to keep the selected House Members or wants to go back to the elected House Members. If keep is selected, then the public would vote at the next general election to see if they want to have the Senate selected also.
I know that intelligent minds can more fully flesh out these basic principles. But no intelligent mind could help to prove that we currently have a representative government.