Well, my mother-in-law loved it...

[Mythsaje]

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.

[Book Lover]

1. My initial reaction was to smile

Like choosing citizens to serve as jurors. I'd like to mull that over, but I somehow like it...

[krkaufman]

27. Yeah, like a jury, except it would only select from a pool of names...

... of those who had submitted themselves to serve.

I saw a Twilight Zone-like show with this sort of system for the President, I think.

Sounds good to me.

[Lars39]

2. Didn't the Venetians do this for a while?

[Waya]

19. The Greeks did it for a while....

Direct Democracy

Democracy in ancient Athens was quite different from the way people practise it today. Democracies today are "representative democracies", by which the general population elects a small group of people every few years who then make all of the governmental decisions on behalf of the people. In Athens, however, every governmental decision had to be made by a big assembly of all eligible citizens who wanted to take part – in some cases, this had to be at least 6,000 citizens. This is called a "direct democracy".

Athens had a direct democracy for most of the time between 508 and 322 BC, though the processes were always subject to change. Some other Greek states were also democracies, but many were tyrannies (ruled by one man) or oligarchies (ruled by a small number of men, usually the richest).

The Assembly of Eligible Citizens

The Athenian assembly – which is the ancestor of a modern day parliament sitting – would meet in a large open-air area on the side of a hill in Athens called the Pnyx. Only male citizens over the age of 20 were allowed to take part. Women, children, slaves and foreigners were not permitted to participate in any part of Athenian democracy. Any member of the assembly could speak and make proposals (at least in theory), and everyone at the assembly voted on each issue by a show of hands.

The assembly met at least 40 times a year. Sometimes, the authorities had trouble rounding up enough people to attend the assembly, so they would send out slaves carrying ropes dipped in red dye. Anybody that they hit would be fined, so people would run from the slaves to the Pnyx where they were safe and join the assembly.

The Council of 500

The Athenians also had a council with 500 members (called the "boule"), which prepared the agenda for the assembly and carried out its decisions. This council also administered the state finances and a number of other state affairs. The members were chosen by lottery from the population of citizen men over the age of 30 and served for one year. A man was allowed to be a member only twice in his whole lifetime.

The council would meet on most days of the year in a council chamber in the agora. There were also a number of other magistrates, most of whom were chosen by lottery. Some, however, were elected by the assembly, most notably the generals.

Justice and Juries

Juries in ancient Athens were also chosen by lottery drawn from any male citizens over the age of 30 who volunteered at the start of each year. Juries were made up of different numbers depending on the type of case. Often in the fourth century there were 501 jurors deciding one case, though sometimes there were as many as 2,501. Speeches were timed and after each side had put forward his case, all of the jurors voted by secret ballot. The case was decided by a simple majority. Witnesses were allowed, but unlike today, there was no cross-examination. Imprisonment was not used as a punishment following a conviction in ancient Athens – usually a person found guilty either had to pay a fine or was put to death.

Ostracism

Aother important part of Athenian democracy in the fifth century was something called ostracism. Once every year, the assembly would be asked if they wanted to hold an ostracism. If they said yes, then, two months later, the assembly met in the agora. Everybody who wanted to could scratch the name of somebody they wanted to get rid of on to a sherd of pottery and deposit it. If there was a total of 6,000 pieces of pottery, then whoever had the most votes had to leave the country for ten years within ten days.

http://www.abc.net.au/arts/wingedsandals/history5.htm

[Occulus]

23. I don't think that's precisely what's being discussed ;)

But thanks for the history lesson; I've always been a bit curious about some of those mechanisms. I think this system we're discussing here would be, by the information you posted, halfway in between, or perhaps a little more toward representative, versus the direct system used by the Greeks.

Obviously, a direct democracy such as that would never work here. What would we call the one we're talkng about- a representative/direct democracy?

[lildreamer316]

3. VERY interesting idea. I am going to

hang around and hope someone with some historical perspective can post some info on this. Defiantly something to discuss......

[Mythsaje]

4. Unfortunately no one will see it...

It'll vanish into the background faster than a RW meme hits the airwaves.

Even IF all three responders nominated it.

Did I mention that I HATE this 5 nominations crap?

[Occulus]

24. No, you're onto something

Nobody's shown up yet just decrying it without further elaboration. ;)

You have eight nominations; mine was one of them. Congratulations! :)

[RoyGBiv]

5. A Criticism ...

This is going to come off sounding very harsh, but I can think of no nice way to put it, so I won't try. I don't expect everyone to agree with this either.

I don't *want* the House of Representatives to be "representative of the American people." The vast majority of the "American people" are ignorant, selfish, and incompetent in almost everything they do or try to do. Does this describe many of our Congress people? Yes, but it doesn't describe our great members of Congress who were and are themselves members of influential circles. The Founders were lawyers, philosophers, and landowners, i.e. the ultra-elite of their day. Daniel Webster, JQ Adams, Abraham Lincoln, FDR were all either members of influential families or powerful, wealthy lawyers lawyers with intimate contacts among the elite that helped them rise to their positions.

If this nation were represented, truly, by the power of popular will, it arguably never would have begun in the first place because the principles upon which it is based are not understood on even a rudimentary level by the vast majority of Americans now, nor were they even contemplated by the vast majority of what came to be Americans at the nation's founding. If American opinion had been represented faithfully, all the natives on this continent would have been slaughtered outright before the middle of the 19th century. If slavery had ever been abolished (a doubtful proposition in itself) the solution to the subsequent "problem" of blacks would have been either to ship them all off to some other place to die or also slaughtered outright. No immigrants would have set foot in this country after about 1830 or so. The rights of women never would have been recognized ... I could go on.

The truly great advancements in our nation and our culture have been achieved by small groups of people working through avenues of influence, wealth, and power.

[Mythsaje]

8. And as we watch

the elite prepare to flush us and the rest of civilization down the toilet in the interests of profit.

But the criticism is noted, and I have to say that I agree that the majority of people seem to be stunningly ignorant of the nature of our "democracy" and what it takes to sustain it.

The days of statesmen making a difference to the future seem to be about over...now they seem to be a bunch of career politicians getting a free ride from OUR buck.

Yes, there are a few exceptions, but, in general, I'm not sure how what I propose would be any worse than what we have now--ignorant, opinionated, RICH, savages making decisions for the rest of us.

Woo-hoo.

[RoyGBiv]

15. Few Exceptions ...

But that's the point behind my point.

The Founders were "exceptions." Abraham Lincoln was an "exception." FDR was an "exception." JQ Adams is the ultimate example of an the ultra-elite exception. He stood in Congress, alone, for years, raging against slavery generally and the Gag Rule specifically. Many of his fellow congressmen make the current crop look positively enlightened by comparison. He endured everything flung at him, and it took a long time, but he prevailed.

There was one exception on the Supreme Court that decided Plessy v Furgeson, and when it came to pass some 50 years later that this decision was found to be utterly wrong, the "exception" of 1896 had been using much the same logic that was used in Brown. These were individuals who made a difference against incredibly long odds and in the face of competition from colleagues who were every bit as corrupt, ignorant, and selfish as those we have in the halls of power today. The nation did survive the Gilded Age, at least for another century. When our modern-day WEB Dubois, Helen Keller, Eugene Debs, etc. start making their voices known, those within or within reach of the circles of power will become emboldened to act.

And if you think that's a "rose coloured glasses" view, it's not. A lot of pain will come before progress can be made. I expect I'll be dead before we see a genuine turn, but I have hope for my daughter.

[Occulus]

9. No, no, I think those are valid concerns

And really ought to be considered, again as something such an Amdenment should be written to prevent. Perhaps the lottery system could affect one legislative body, but not the other: one drawn by lottery, one elected; the one to pass laws the other writes. There's a balance of power there, which is one of the pieces of bedrock upon which our Constitution is constructed.

I think, perhaps, your very valid concerns could be properly addressed.

[Nostradammit]

6. Award extra lottery chances for voluntary civic service

Disbursed on a local level by a locally elected panel.


Hmmm.

[Occulus]

7. I sort of like this proposal, and

I think you ought to approach the ramifications very carefully, but in an era in which elections are big, expensive, money-influenced things, and to such a staggering degree as we see today, with all their attendant lies and misdirections- perhaps such a change to our Constitution should be seriously considered.

A Constitutional Convention would be required to make this happen; such an amendment would never pass via the Congress as it stands today. Also, registered voters should have the option of not serving as an elected official so we avoid people being in Congress or the state legislatures who really do not want to or for personal reasons cannot serve as a member of the legislative body.

Should we allow the People to have a choice regarding which body they wish to serve in? And would we filter out persons convicted of certain crimes, as the system currently in place does as a consequence of the elective process itself?

How would pay be handled, if a person "wins" the lottery and actually must take a pay cut if they decide to go make law? And again, will they even have the option of saying no?

I'm not decrying your proposal. I think it definitely has some merit, given the way horrifically obscene amounts of money and lies and in some cases cheating have infiltrated our political process. I just think we need to ask and answer all the questions we can before it's ever actually floated to the public.

You're talking about a very fundamental alteration to our Constitution, and none of us should take it lightly. Above all, I think we should remember that just because it is a fundamental change, it does not follow that it is necessarily a bad change.

[Mythsaje]

11. I tend to think it's impossible,

but interesting to contemplate nonetheless. There are a lot of potential flaws, but many rewards as well.

[Occulus]

14. I think the flaws could and should be addressed

Like I said, this is a very fundamental change, but I think it could be a very good change if it is soberly considered.

[Sgent]

10. We are sending people to

Make, interpret, and enforce laws. Is there any surprise they are lawyers who have studied law academically?

I agree it can go to far, but I'm not sure this idea is any better.

It will essentially put the bureaucracy in charge even moreso than today. Since none of the lawmakers will have either the expertise nor depth of knowledge to understand what they are legislating, they will turn to the bureaucracy.

[Mythsaje]

12. There is some of that, sure...

The problem is that it DOES seem to be becoming an aristocracy, slowly freezing out anyone not born into it through lack of solid education, lack of funding for higher education for the lower classes, and a general assumption that they "know what's best for us."

Uh...no they don't. If they did we wouldn't be where we are today. There are laws on the books that are NEVER enforced, except when it's convenient to do so, and laws that have come full circle to the point where they injure those they're meant to protect.

Simply writing and passing a law doesn't solve anything. I think these people need reminded of this.

[Occulus]

13. One could argue, by that last bit of logic,

many of them don't have that expertise as things stand today. ;)

I don't like laws with lots and lots of loopholes (usually written in for campaign donors) because it makes the law applicable to some, at some times. As in, pull your scam off correctly and the law allows you to do so.

That's a simple rhetorical example, and not to be taken literally. However, one only need look in the diection of our current administration to see what crony capitalistic politics can do to a representative democracy such as ours.

Look at how they're trying to eliminate the estate tax even in the face of the disaster down south. I guarantee you, if the above system were in place rather than the one we have now, we would not be seeing such mass death and destruction.

Only a robust, fully funded public educational system would make this change even the remotest of workable possibilities. It would take years to re-fund that from where it is now.

So, there's no real chance of this being a good change... yet. It could be, if we properly fund education.

Perhaps it's time for a change.

[Sgent]

16. Maybe requrie

a terminal or professional degree?

I know that this wouldn't be particularly popular with democracy is best, but it would get a large range of expertise in the office (and I agree law is not the only one needed). Engineers, Doctors, Sociologists, Psychologists, Historians, Philosphers, MBA's... yea, this would be elitest, but it would probably be more fair than we have now.

[Occulus]

17. If we funded education such that

college were included in the total package, that would be a plausible filter on the process.

If we did do that, it would stop being elitist to use it as a filter. Between that and an opt-out clause, it could easily better our laws and our society. We would truly be putting our best and brightest into our government.

I would say the American people deserve no less.

[Mythsaje]

18. Or simply require that those chosen

exhibit a working knowledge of how this all comes together.

One doesn't have to have a degree to be educated. In fact, some people find their vision narrowed by too much "education." I have an acquaintance who left the psychology field out of sheer disgust at what he saw as the politicizing of mental health. A hidebound, no other theories allowed, type of thinking.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to replace one sort of elitism with another. Especially since the current trend in higher education puts it farther and farther out of reach with the common people most needing representation.

[MADem]

20. If lawyers get elected, more people need to study law

The ABA is fighting like hell against these affordable law schools like MA School of Law (which beat Harvard in a Law Jeopardy contest, and has a very high percentage of first-time passes of the bar exam).

I say grab their weapon and beat them down with their own sword!

[Occulus]

22. Haven't state bar assn's also prevented

legal self-help publications from becoming widely available? I seem to recall a story several years ago from one of the southwestern states- I think perhaps it was AZ- in which a publishing company was dragged into court by the state bar assn for practicing law without a license or some other such nonsense because they were trying to publish a set of CD-ROMs that explained the state laws in ordinary terms, for ordinary people to use in court in their own defense.

We once had a robust tradition of self-defense in this country, as I understand things. That began to end when the old adage was uttered: "a man who represents himself has a fool for a client." This is not necessarily true, and would in fact be less true even than it is... if we properly funded public education, or if our laws were written to be easily understood by those subject to them.

Those licensed to practice law should have a monopoly upon representing others. They should not have a monopoly on the very understanding of the law. Just as we are all subject to the laws under which we live, so too should we all be capable of understanding those laws sufficiently well enough to defend against charges that we violated them.

What is it, exactly, that happens when a bunch of laws- or, worse yet, the majority of those laws- are passed which are written in such a way as to be only properly understood by licensed attorneys? I believe the standard we should adopt in the construction of our laws- the language which is itself used in the law- should rise to that of the US Constitution: they should be easily understood, and devoid of legalese.

Everyone deserves to fully understand the law. Note the word 'deserves'. Perhaps, if our laws were being written by 'ordinary' people, or were being written so 'ordinary' people could understand those laws, we would not be in the mess we are in today, with this administration.

If ignorance of the law is no defense, the law ought to be written such that none are ignorant.

[quisp]

21. I'm all for it.

I've thought for years that we should do it that way.

[Javaman]

25. Okay, how does one rig a lottery? Ask rove, I'm sure he already has.

[Grey]

26. A si-fi novel....

I can't remember the name of the Book or the Author, They used a super computer. Everyone that graduated from university was entered in the 'Computer'. As each 'entered person' advanced through life, the life experience of the person was tracked. As a position came open the 'Computer' chose the most appropriate person. Need a new FEMA Director, State Senator,President, etc. ask the Computer. Each person had to put their life on 'hold' and serve a given length of time. If at the end of that time there was no one to better serve, The chosen person could be asked to remain the that position for another term. 2 terms, no longer.

A large group of people had programed the computer with the necessary qualifications needed for each position, just as you would look for some one to be an officer in a large company.

I know it wouldn't work but I do like the concept.....