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