Let's debate "randomocracy"

[BrainGlutton]

I once read a humorous graphic novel called President Bob or President Ted or something, I forget, about an ordinary guy who is selected as president of the United States in a national lottery after the Constitution is amended to replace elections with "randomocracy." It's just humor, but I once read a purportedly serious proposal in a conservative political magazine (I think it was the National Review) that Congress be selected by lottery -- like most public officials were in ancient Athens (or like we now select jurors). Is this perhaps something to be seriously considered?


Arguments for:

Our present Congress is mostly made up of rich people, lawyers, and other professionals -- far from typical Americans. Regardless of their politics, we can expect them to put the interests of their own class first. A Congress composed of 535 randomly selected registered voters would be a more "exact transcript" of the people. I.e., by statistical probability it would include rich and middle-class and poor people, men and women, whites and blacks and Latinos, liberals and conservatives, in roughly the same proportions as they are present in the electorate as a whole. Wouldn't that be more democratic, in terms of practical effects?

Eliminating Congressional elections eliminates the influence of big money on the composition and policies of Congress. No need for campaign contributions, no way for businesses and lobbyists to influence the process.

You want "citizen legislators"? You got citizen legislators. These members of Congress -- effectively limited to one term, because who could win the lottery twice? -- would not be career politicians, they would be just plain folks, like jurors.


Arguments against:

They would not be career politicians. Our present class of career politicians at least know what they're doing; they are professional experts in the highly complicated business of government. A Congress composed of randomly selected citizens would not be a Congress, it would be a focus group, competent only to vote up-or-down on proposals of the executive. Even more effective power would shift into the hands of the career bureaucrats who remain in Washington from one election/selection cycle to the next, gaining more expertise, knowledge and connections.

Congressional elections give us all an occasion to focus public attention on public issues and flesh out some kind of public consensus, or at least majority sentiment, regarding them. We couldn't do that in a lottery.

[Bryan Ekers]

Think how dumb the average guy is, then realize that half the population is dumber than that.

George Carlin provides a better argument than I've ever likely to.

[BrainGlutton]

Think how dumb the average guy is, then realize that half the population is dumber than that.

But the other half is smarter than that! :)

And I think the "average guy" is a lot smarter than we brainiacs give him credit for. Think of the brains it takes (not in the book-learning sense or abstract-thought sense, but in the thinking-on-your-feet sense) to drive a car from point A to point B in chaotic heavy traffic and not get yourself or somebody else killed. Yet millions do it every day. Illiterates can do it. Paraplegics can do it, with the right equipment. Anyone who isn't blind or severely retarded can do it.

[Dr. Love]

I think the Spartans had the right idea. Randomly select the leaders from the population. Then, to keep them honest, put them immediately on trial at the end of their term, to determine if they committed any crimes.

Realistically, I doubt this plan would work out very well. The best we could probably hope for is deadlock. It's possible that the rich would have more power (when representatives need money, it might be easier to bribe them), and if one ideology finds itself firmly in power, I have my doubts that some would be very respectful of the freedoms others enjoy. Of course, this is only IMHO, and I'm very willing to be proven wrong.

[BrainGlutton]

It's possible that the rich would have more power (when representatives need money, it might be easier to bribe them) . . .

But under our present system, all but the very richest Congresscritters "need money," to finance their next re-election campaign, and they are subject to perfectly lawful bribery in the form of campaign contributions, most of which come from the superrich, major corporations, and business lobbies.

. . . and if one ideology finds itself firmly in power, I have my doubts that some would be very respectful of the freedoms others enjoy.

But no one ideology is clearly predominant among the people, so why would randomocracy produce a Congress dominated by one ideology? In fact, it probably would represent a much wider range of political views than you'll find there now. Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, America Firsters (or persons who have no particular involvement or interest in any of those parties but would mostly agree with one of them's world-view if sounded out) would have a chance to get into Congress by random probability. Under our present system, they have no chance at all.

Besides, Congress is not absolutely sovereign. We would still have our present system of checks-and-balances. I'm proposing only one change, how members of Congress are chosen.

[Freddy the Pig]

The technical name for this process is sortition, the selection of public officials by lot. It was proposed by a few fringe thinkers when the British Labor government was debating House of Lords reform in the 1990's.

That actually would have been an interesting experiment, because the Lords have enough power to be meaningful but not enough to be seriously disruptive if the experiment goes awry. I'd love to see us make some use of this concept--maybe randomly selected people could be given a voice but not a vote in Congress, like the DC delegate, or they could be given seats on committees. They might outshine the real members--it wouldn't be that hard.

[Civil Guy]

I hope someone more eloquent than I will come along, but for now...

I don't think the idea would work. Power in the hands of people who don't know how to use it isn't much good, and can be awfully destructive. I suspect that political power is made up of different parts - the ability to pursuade, the ability to wheel and deal, heck, the ability to look half-way decent in front of a TV camera, the ability to fake sincerity, the ability to lead a parade just by getting in front of it - and the list goes on, probably.

I suspect that in the world of politics, these qualities are absolutely vital.
If we tried to force ordinary folks into political situations beyond their ability, we'd find them to be incredibly weak and vacilating - or incredibly pigheaded. Further, I don't think that the political power would automatically disappear - I just think that it would be transferred over to "advisors", political consultants and lobbyists. (I'm no great fan of term limits, you might guess.)

The system we have isn't very good, I agree. I just don't see that this idea would improve things any.

[brickbacon]

I like the idea, but I don't see how it could work efficiently and effectively. Like most complex jobs, being a congressman has a steep learning curve. Do you really think most people know what a fillibuster is, or how social security works? I would much rather see better ways to control the flow of money.

[rjung]

Talk about a target ripe for abuse -- it'd make Diebold voting machines look like amateur night by comparison.

[EsotericEnigma]

randomology does not produce an electorate that represents the will of the people. it has a pretty good statistical chance of doing so, but also a chance (although admittiedly a small one) of selecting all of the 550+ members of the branch dividians in waco.

i'd rather have the greater assurance of accurate representation that comes from members actually being elected by a popular vote.

[XT]

The problem of course is that all the infrastructure below the congressmen/women would most likely remain the same. It would have too or the whole system would fail. You've probably heard the term 'captured by the system' to describe congressmen who were quite promissing or fire eaters coming in, and within a few years are just another warm body on the take? The reason that happens is because of the 'system' in place, with carreer non-elected professionals who support the congress, the senate and even the president.

Unless you are going to change that (and I don't know how you would), what you would have is a bunch of newbies coming in, being 'guided' by the professional staff (which wouldn't change), and being basically rubber stamps for whatever THEY wanted them to be. Especially if you limited it to one term...by the time a person coming in spun up to speed and perhaps started really doing things for themselves they would be out the door and the next new guy would be coming in.

It just won't work. Flawed as our system is I can think of no better way to select those who govern us that is superior to what we have now, gods help us all...certainly not this. Would be nice if all the partisan politics could be toned down though (as each random citizen would bring their own politics in, and they'd only be there one term, no time for real partisanship to form before the next guy came in...potentially with a radically different political outlook)...but it would be complete chaos as one term a fiscal conservative was 'chosen', the next a right wing religious nut job, next a left wing liberal, etc...and all 'guided' by that professional non-elected staff. Would be funny to see, but I doubt anyone would like to live through the results. :)

-XT

[Blalron]

randomology does not produce an electorate that represents the will of the people.

And our current system does?

it has a pretty good statistical chance of doing so, but also a chance (although admittiedly a small one) of selecting all of the 550+ members of the branch dividians in waco.

The chances of that are so ridiculously remote statistically that it shouldn't be an impediment to considering a randomocracy.

Theoretically, all our Congressmen could be Branch Davidians pretending to be Republicans and Democrats and this has all been a farce and tomorrow they will unveil their true selves to the public at large and ritualistically burn themselves to death in the Capitol. That's about as probable as your above scenerio.

If, by some statistical fluke, we get 500 people from the John Birch Society, we could allow the public at large to hold a "No Confidence" vote and randomly select Congressmen again.

Plus we'd still have checks and balances to keep Congress in line.

[Blalron]

Unless you are going to change that (and I don't know how you would), what you would have is a bunch of newbies coming in, being 'guided' by the professional staff (which wouldn't change), and being basically rubber stamps for whatever THEY wanted them to be. Especially if you limited it to one term...by the time a person coming in spun up to speed and perhaps started really doing things for themselves they would be out the door and the next new guy would be coming in.

Ok. Easy. We Stagger the terms like we do with the Senate. Every two years, one third of the spots are replaced. The newbies can be guided by the older citizen congressmen and not be complete pawns of the professional staff.

[XT]

Ok. Easy. We Stagger the terms like we do with the Senate. Every two years, one third of the spots are replaced. The newbies can be guided by the older citizen congressmen and not be complete pawns of the professional staff.

So, they will be partial pawns to their staffs and partial pawns to some random guy who happens to be there for 2 more years? ;) This doesn't sound optimal to me. Lets say that I'm selected and am there for 2 years. Along comes BrainGlutton, say, or yourself. Are you going to be guided by me over that of your staff? Or are you going to be guided by the neo-nazi skin head guy over there? Perhaps you will be guided by the religious nut ball on isle 3? How will you figure out WHO to be guided by...before their term is up and they are gone? You going to grill each member of congress/senate to figure out which of the 'old hands' has similar political outlooks to yourself? Even if this were possible (where will you find the time to do this while doing the job you are supposed to be doing?), who were THEY guided by when they came on board? How diligent were THEY at deciding who their mentor was? Or did they just rely on their staffs?

No matter how you parse this, its not feasible. Perhaps it would work if you were a city state back in ancient greece or something...but to control a modern nation, and a nation that is a superpower at that? One that spans a continent? I'm not seeing it.

-XT

[brickbacon]

So, they will be partial pawns to their staffs and partial pawns to some random guy who happens to be there for 2 more years? ;) This doesn't sound optimal to me. Lets say that I'm selected and am there for 2 years. Along comes BrainGlutton, say, or yourself. Are you going to be guided by me over that of your staff? Or are you going to be guided by the neo-nazi skin head guy over there? Perhaps you will be guided by the religious nut ball on isle 3? How will you figure out WHO to be guided by...before their term is up and they are gone? You going to grill each member of congress/senate to figure out which of the 'old hands' has similar political outlooks to yourself? Even if this were possible (where will you find the time to do this while doing the job you are supposed to be doing?), who were THEY guided by when they came on board? How diligent were THEY at deciding who their mentor was? Or did they just rely on their staffs?

No matter how you parse this, its not feasible. Perhaps it would work if you were a city state back in ancient greece or something...but to control a modern nation, and a nation that is a superpower at that? One that spans a continent? I'm not seeing it.

-XT

Well if they did it like the jury selection process, you would be able to get rid of most of the obvious nutjobs (ie. skinheads, religious nuts, etc.). I agree with you though that it would be a bad idea though.

[Blalron]

So, they will be partial pawns to their staffs and partial pawns to some random guy who happens to be there for 2 more years? ;) This doesn't sound optimal to me. Lets say that I'm selected and am there for 2 years. Along comes BrainGlutton, say, or yourself. Are you going to be guided by me over that of your staff? Or are you going to be guided by the neo-nazi skin head guy over there? Perhaps you will be guided by the religious nut ball on isle 3? How will you figure out WHO to be guided by...before their term is up and they are gone? You going to grill each member of congress/senate to figure out which of the 'old hands' has similar political outlooks to yourself?

Meh, it's probably not as troublesome as think to find someone with a similar outlook to yourself. You don't need to grill every single one. I'm sure they'll be websites out there with the voting records and general profiles of our lucky congressmen.

I have faith in the common man, as long as they are making informed opinions. We trust juries, don't we?

[Blalron]

Here's a big question: Will only citizens willing to serve be selected, or will it be mandatory like the draft?

I can imagine now. You get a notice in the mail and look upon it with dread.

"Oh no, not Congress Duty!"

[Blalron]

Also, I don't think that having an advisor is neccesarily going to make you a pawn to them. If I was stuck with a Conservative advisor who told me to vote his way, I'd tell him to pound sand.

[Blalron]

Based on the complete and utter ignorance displayed by Congress when they passed "Terri's Law" and when they blindly rubber stamped the Iraqi War resolution, I honestly don't think that your average Congressmen is more qualified to pass laws than Joe Sixpack who frequents the 7-11. I truly and honestly don't.

At least with Sortition we'd have a chance to have unpopular voices speak their minds and vote their consciences without the need to worry about catering to certain groups of people for re-election. We could see open atheists in Congress, for instance. With our current setup there isn't a snowballs chance in hell a congressmen would introduce a bill to remove "Under God" from the pledge of allegience, or to legalize marijuana, or legalize same sex marriage. With sortition those things could at least be honestly discussed and debated.

[RandomLetters]

Here's a big question: Will only citizens willing to serve be selected, or will it be mandatory like the draft?

I can imagine now. You get a notice in the mail and look upon it with dread.

"Oh no, not Congress Duty!"

Don't Congressmen get payed $160,000 a year or so? That would take the edge off having to serve in Congress.

And how about a compromise system - keep the current House & Senate, but add in a third branch of Congress, with each member randomly selected from each representative district, and give the randomly selected members terms of say 4 years - which should give them enough time to get the hang of the job. This of course would make it much more difficult to pass bills through Congress, but that is a feature, not a bug. ;)

Also note that this system would throw a serious screwball into attempts to gerrymander congressional districts - dilluting your portion of the vote in one district, to gain more votes in another, would increase the chance that someone from your district with opposing political views would be randomly selected.

[asterion]

I'm sitting here thinking of Dick's The Zap Gun (at least, I think that's the novel) where the B plot is that the group of world leaders (something along those lines) are chosen by lot. Of course, it turns out that they have no power whatsoever. And I'm not sure I ever really understood the book anyway. And yes, I know it was a take on the arms race.

[Lemur866]

This might work if we instituted a third branch of congress, all selected randomly. This branch would have no other function than to veto legislation passed by the house and senate. If congress can't persuade a random sample of 435 tribunes that the legislation is worthwhile, it probably stinks.

[John Mace]

What kind of person would be able to give up his job for a few years, move to Wash DC (with his family) and then return to his previous job/life afterwards? Even if the pay was great, I just don't see it as a practical system.

[Menocchio]

This might work if we instituted a third branch of congress, all selected randomly. This branch would have no other function than to veto legislation passed by the house and senate. If congress can't persuade a random sample of 435 tribunes that the legislation is worthwhile, it probably stinks.

Now this I like. I couldn't write a decent new law to save my life. I'd be utterly at the mercy of my staff. But I have ideas about the proper function of government and what should be done, and I'd gleefully vote to veto anything that overstepped those bounds or seemed like a bad idea in general.

[Freddy the Pig]

What kind of person would be able to give up his job for a few years, move to Wash DC (with his family) and then return to his previous job/life afterwards? Even if the pay was great, I just don't see it as a practical system.Given the eagerness with which people turn their lives upside down for reality TV shows, I can't imagine there'd be any shortage of people willing to serve. The pay kicks butt, the job brightens up a resume, and service would be for a limited time (maybe four years).

The job could include a decent family housing and relocation allowance--it would be a small thing compared to the other perks we bestow on elected officials. Sure, a few people would bail--but others would line up to take their place.

[John Mace]

Given the eagerness with which people turn their lives upside down for reality TV shows, I can't imagine there'd be any shortage of people willing to serve. The pay kicks butt, the job brightens up a resume, and service would be for a limited time (maybe four years).

Bad analogy. Reality Show participants are self selected, and can opt out if they're really not up to it. Four years may be a "limited time" for you, but not for most people. I sure wouldn't do it.

[XT]

Well, I suppose they could off people who take it retirement after they serve their 4 year term...some kind of pension or whatever (at tax payer expense of course :)). If they sweetened the pot enough I figure most citizens would do it if selected...and you could alway make it so folks could opt out if they really didn't want to do it. I don't see that as much of a problem as the fact that it simply wouldn't work.

-XT

[Blalron]

Well, I suppose they could off people who take it retirement after they serve their 4 year term...some kind of pension or whatever (at tax payer expense of course :)). If they sweetened the pot enough I figure most citizens would do it if selected...and you could alway make it so folks could opt out if they really didn't want to do it. I don't see that as much of a problem as the fact that it simply wouldn't work.

How about trying a mock sortition Congress for a few years and see what kind of bills come out of there? What they pass wouldn't have the effect of law, but it could influence the real Congress to change its mind on certain things.

If they do really well, then consider giving them real power.

[XT]

BTW, would we be selecting the president the same way as always, or would that be modified too?

-XT

[Blalron]

BTW, would we be selecting the president the same way as always, or would that be modified too?

With Congress, you don't have to worry so much about nutcases getting selected because the normal people would virtually be certain to always outnumber them.

But with the President, I wouldn't want a direct sortition method used to elect him.

Here's my idea: Select your random Congress. Then Congress must decide who, amongst themselves, gets elevated to the Presidency.

[XT]

I would think, if thats the case, that it would only strengthen the presidency even more, giving him/her even greater powers to run roughshod over congress and/or the senate than the executive branch already does. Perhaps this wouldn't be such a bad thing in light of how the congress/senate have acted in recent history...but then again, granting someone like GW even MORE powers might not be such a good thing either. I don't see 'ordanary' citizens with limited experience and even more limited knowledge being able to really stand up NOR to make good or informed decisions. And these folks wouldn't even be accountable like the present day congress/senate because they wouldn't be running for re-election. Certainly there is a good side to that...but then again, there is a potentially bad side if they can pretty much do what they want...or do nothing at all and just ride it out.

-XT

[Blalron]

I would think, if thats the case, that it would only strengthen the presidency even more, giving him/her even greater powers to run roughshod over congress and/or the senate than the executive branch already does. Perhaps this wouldn't be such a bad thing in light of how the congress/senate have acted in recent history...but then again, granting someone like GW even MORE powers might not be such a good thing either.

In that case, we can make the President more like a Prime Minister. Make the President more answerable to Congress (have a "question time" where the opposition can rail on him for his mistakes) and he can be recalled on a vote of "no confidence" if he's a major fuckup but still hasn't committed anything impeachable.


I don't see 'ordanary' citizens with limited experience and even more limited knowledge being able to really stand up NOR to make good or informed decisions.

I think the reason you have such little faith in ordinary citizens is because most ordinary citizens get their information from 10 second soundbites they see on Fox News or whatever they gleam from glancing at the headlines.

But if they were actually exposed to in depth discussion and research on major issues, I think they could make informed decisions. After all, we trust juries to make life and death decisions every day.

And these folks wouldn't even be accountable like the present day congress/senate because they wouldn't be running for re-election.

This is exactly the beauty of it though. Free discussion of issues is dampered because Congressmen are scared shitless that they'll be booted out of office for even bringing it up. Has a single Congressmen, even Barney Frank, had the balls to introduce a bill for the federal government to recognize Gay Marriage?

435 Representatives, and not a single one of them feels gay marriage should be legalized? Bullshit. I bet a few of them do, but they're too scared to say so.

435 Representatives, and not a single one of them thinks "Under God" doesn't belong in the pledge of allegiance? Bullshit. At least a couple of them do, but they know if they said it publicly the enraged voters would vote them out.

So these issues don't even get talked about.

Certainly there is a good side to that...but then again, there is a potentially bad side if they can pretty much do what they want...or do nothing at all and just ride it out.

What could go wrong? We'd still have a Supreme Court and a Constitution to keep them in check, plus the knowledge that a future sortition could undo any mistakes they made at a later time if public sentiment was strong enough.