Critique this fictional form of government

In My Humble Opinion
1

So I had this idea for a fictional form of government. It’s pretty weird, and I’m sure it’s not perfect. What are the pros and cons?

Here it is:

A country has a constitution with a bill of rights similar to the USA’s constitution. There are articles similar to many US Constitution amendments outlawing slavery, guaranteeing the right to vote, and ensuring various other basic civil rights. I’ll assume a Federal system with individuals states/provinces having a near-identical political structure (on a smaller scale) to the Federal government.

There are two branches of government: executive and judicial, but no legislative branch. There is one executive official (let’s call him President) and 11 members of the judicial branch (let’s call them Justices). The President can basically make and execute laws, and the Justices interpret the laws to ensure they do not violate the Constitution. The President is also the Commander-in-chief.

Here’s where it gets weird – Justices are picked at random from the adult citizenry – totally and completely random adult citizens (age 35 and older), and they serve for 10 years. Once their term is up, they go back to normal life and can’t be picked again.

Further weirdness – the President is also picked at random from the adult citizenry (let’s say age 35 or older). But then there is a vote – the ‘President-select’ has a month to make a public case as to why he/she would be a good President, and then the public votes “yes” or “no”, with a 2/3rds majority required. If they vote “no”, then the random selection goes back to private life and another citizen is selected at random (with the same month to make a case – in the meantime, the previous President continues to serve). If they vote “yes” with a 2/3rds majority, then the President-select is sworn in and serves a 4 year term. Presidents have the option of ‘running’ for re-election – just like the earlier case, they have a month or two to make a public case, and then there’s a yes/no vote, with a 2/3rds majority required. They can only serve for two terms, and aftewards cannot be selected again.

The Justices can challenge any action of the President (or lower officials, with cases working their way up from lower courts that are similarly selected), and overturn actions of the President as un-constitutional with a simple majority vote. If any action of the President is determined un-constitutional, then it is struck down, as well as automatically triggering a no-confidence vote by the people (with a short period of time for the President to explain his/her side) – since it’s in the middle of a term, this no-confidence vote (to keep or not keep the President) only requires a simple majority either way.

Military action also adds a special case. If the President wants to send forces overseas, launch missiles, or basically do any shooting/killing at all, it automatically triggers a no-confidence vote, with a simple majority required to keep or boot the President (with a few weeks for him/her to make his/her case).

So what are the pros and cons? What situations have I left out for which I should include scenarios?

2

Being a President or SC Judge is a huge responsibility. Not everyone is up to the task and I bet most would refuse to offer. You’re going to have to make many many time consuming random draws to find a willing candidate to start. What’s more, most willing candidates won’t be suitable so you’re in for one hell of a long selection process.

3

Con: too much turnover in the office of president. I don’t think you could every keep single person in office for even one term.

4

This is possible, and I’m sure lots of people would say ‘no’. I’ll stipulate that anyone can say no to either position (let’s give them a week to consider). But I think lots of people would not turn down the opportunity.

Further – why would most willing candidates not be suitable? Sure, there’d be some nuts and power-hungry jerks that might say ‘yes’, but I doubt they’d make their case sufficiently for a 2/3rds vote.

I envision that the 2/3rds vote requirement would mean most of the public-at-large would set some sort of relatively low bar for a ‘yes’ vote – like “If this person is sane, reasonably intelligent, at least moderatly compassionate and honest, and can demonstrate a good work ethic, then I will vote ‘yes’”. In this world the ‘candidate’ would probably get his/her friends and relatives to speak for him/her on the month-long ‘campaign’ trail, while the media would dig into his/her past and interview people who did not like this person.

5

I can think of three problems right off the bat, that follow from the fact that you are putting the entire lawmaking and executing power in the hands of one person:

That one person may not have much expertise in what it takes to properly draft legislation, and certainly wouldn’t have much expertise in the subject matter of most if not all of the necessary laws.

That person would have much of the current government’s power concentrated into his (or her) own hands: you’ve done away with many of the checks and balances in our current Constitution.

That one person would be doing the work that is now being done by literally hundreds of people. Where would he find the time to do it all?

And that’s all assuming the person who’s serving has his heart in the right place and genuinely wants to do what’s best for the country. If that’s not the case, things could get much worse.

6

The first and third problems could be corrected by the President’s staff – he wouldn’t have a legislature, but he/she would have a very large staff – in fact, a big part of the ‘campaign’ would undoubtedly be the candidate explaining what experts the President plans to hire to advise and assist him/her.

The second is certainly legitimate, but it’s also a feature – things can get done much more quickly and without the sloth-like movement of a bureacracy wrought with special interests and lobbyists.

7

I’m confident it would have the exact opposite effect of what you’re hoping. The president and justices would have no experience, no expertise and be unprepared for the jobs (since they had no way or reason to strive towards them or make it more likely they would sit in that seat).
Consequently they must rely on the experts even more than the politicians do today. Those experts are largely bureaucrats and/or representatives of special interests.
And without the opportunity to build any real expertise of their own the president/justices are going to have to rely on them even more than they are today.

8

What do you think are the pros? Do you think that it improves on our current system in any way?

9

Random people selected to be President wouldn’t have the expertise, experience, or connections to select an appropriate staff. Instead, the entrenched civil service bureaucracy would come into being that really ran things. They wouldn’t be elected and there wouldn’t be many checks on them.

Or, you’d have full turnover each cycle with resulting 180 degree changes or worse. There would be no continuity and no way to do long term planning.

10

I can’t get on board with the random selection of important leaders. You have so very high a likelihood of selecting someone of lesser capability and competence.

I also have to agree with Thudlow Boink, that this process removes too many safeguards and balances. It would be too easy for the President to do an “Andrew Jackson” and simply flout a court ruling. Or to do a Boris Yeltsin and have ranks roll up to the courthouse and open fire on it.

In U.S. history, the existence of the third branch, the legislative, was what prevented FDR from simply ignoring the Supreme Court. Roosevelt responded by proposing to increase the number of justices, but since Congress would have none of it, he was stymied. I think, in your model, a new FDR would have almost no obstacles to his programs.

But, seriously, it’s the random selection that I dislike the most. I know what kind of jerks my fellow citizens are! They (we!) aren’t competent to lead a church social picnic half the time, let alone a nation.

11

I’m not surprised to find that there are a lot of ‘cons’ that I hadn’t thought of. Thanks for all the input into my thought experiment.

As far as ‘pros’, I thought it might result in a far more engaged populace, as everyone knows they could be ‘drafted’ at any time, in addition to the fact that the poor and middle class would be just as represented in government as the rich. Further, it seems like it would be much more difficult to go to war (and I might add a recurring quarterly confidence vote as long as troops are engaged in any conflict overseas). It would also avoid the gridlock that plagues the current government – that was probably the chief motivation.

In such a system, I would expect that certain very popular/successful former Presidents/Justices would stay in the public eye after stepping down, and would be a big part of approving/advising new candidates.

But I recognize that, as with an idea put together after just an hour or two of thought, there’s certainly much that I hadn’t thought of :slight_smile:

12

And this is, in fact, one of the benefits of our jury system, where you might get called up at any time. It helps to reassure us that trials are fair. It educates us in the legal process. And it involves us in our own government.

How about assigning Congressional internships on a random basis? A big lottery, and the winners (?) get a paid position, helping out in their Congressman’s office, maybe in Washington or maybe just locally. You could do this for high school seniors, and rig it so one year of this counts for one year of college credit.

(I wrote a sci fi story where Parliamentary votes are sold, outright, on the open market. If you want a law passed, it’ll cost you money. If it’s a controversial law, it will cost you a lot more money.)

13

Being President is a lot more difficult than it looks. Especially in a system like yours where it has greatly expanded powers and duties.

Our current system has 535 members of Congress handling legislation and they’re overworked. But you’d be handing all their responsibilities over to a single person - who’d also be expected to do all of the executive duties of the President.

And the person you’re asking to do all this will have no experience in government.

This is a disaster waiting to happen. The best we could hope for under such a system is a professional bureaucracy rises up to do all of the actual work and the President is smart enough to realize how far over his head he is and lets them do his job for him while he just rubber stamps their decisions.

14

11 members of the judiciary is way too few to hear all the cases that need hearing. You will need a lot more judges for all levels of court and for all types of courts. I’m sure this has occured to you.

In addition, get ready for some serious unpredictability in how decisions are handed down, because the legal principles are not known to the ordinary public. Judges apply precedent to ensure that the law is applied evenhandedly. If you don’t know the precedents then you can’t apply them, and every case becomes appealable.

15

More good points all around. Your first point is addressed by lower courts – I mentioned in the OP that states/provinces/regions/localities have their own government system similar to the Federal one.

But it’s becoming increasingly clear that my idea is probably a pretty silly one :slight_smile:

16

So the President would basically have to say “Hey, Russia, you have launched a massive, unprovoked attack on our allies. I will defend them - but only after we vote on it. Give me 2 weeks.” 2 weeks notice is great for leaving a job, not so good for military action.

17

I’m not sure if I should continue to defend my silly idea (which I’ve been convinced probably has far more going against it than for it), but because you’re misunderstanding at least part of it, here goes: the President wouldn’t have to wait – he could send troops, ships, and start fighting. But it triggers a vote, with only a simple majority needed to keep the President.

But as the C-in-C, he could order troops to start fighting immediately.

18

Sort of like the current War Powers Act compromise. The President can act, but must inform Congress, and if the action is going to take longer than a certain limited period, Congress has to approve.

(Meanwhile, Congress can at any time cut off funding for an action…but probably wouldn’t, as this would appear just a little too disloyal.)

19

You’re contradicting yourself. You say the 2/3 vote requirement would result in “a relatively low bar” but also that nuts and power-hungry jerks wouldn’t make it.

Frankly, I think you’re wrong on both counts. If most people think the ratification vote doesn’t mean much, then a power-hungry jerk can easily manipulate the voters for a month, or a nut can sound reasonable.

On the other hand, you’re asking the voters to entrust one person with virtually absolute power. And I don’t think there’s any person who’s so good (or so non-offensive) that 34% of voters can’t find something to vote against.