That’s right, folks, we are less than 100 days away from November 2nd. As the date approaches I’ll be writing about topics and candidates that catch my eye, but today I’m picking a different type of topic and one that I hope you will join in on – just a few adjustments I wish would be implemented that would make systemic changes in our government.
These suggestions come from the Athens during its Golden Age as a democracy. I’m not enamored of every, or even most, methods they had for governing themselves, but they did have a few stunningly fabulous ideas that worked well.
Holding office by lottery – The Council of 500, an assembly meant to represent the citizens through preliminary debate, was chosen once a year by lottery from all citizens irrespective of wealth or class. It may seem a bit odd to do this, but the reasons for it are as needed today as they were in 487BCE. It reduced the chances of corruption or undue influence brought to bear on governmental officials, it spread both the benefits and responsibilities of active citizenship throughout the population, and it ensured a true voice of the people in government.
We don’t have a Council of 500, but we do have 435 Congresspersons elected to the House of Representatives every two years. Using a lottery system of all registered voters to appoint Congresspersons to the House for a two year term would bring the same benefits as it brought to Athens – lessening corruption, encouraging active participation in government, more citizens would have first hand experience in how laws are created and would see their effects, but the greatest benefit would be in representation. The House, in our form of government, was designed to more closely represent the voice and will of the citizens. That’s in theory. In practice, the House is filled with people who are mostly male, white, Protestant, belong to the upper class, and started out as attorneys. Is that representative of our citizenry? Do they understand the desires, needs, and daily experiences of the average person, let alone a non-average person? A lottery would immediately change the make up of the House to look much more like the population of the USA instead of a country club in Boston.
A concern that people may have is that Congress would be filled with “unqualified” persons and that could lead to ruin. After all we want more intelligent and knowledgeable people than us making decisions for us. Falling for that line of thinking is what has reimposed a ruling class on the USA. One usually based more on wealth than on family lines, created by such false criteria as an Ivy league education and the patronage system. We have allowed ourselves to become convinced, through the machinations of this same ruling class, that we just aren’t smart enough to govern ourselves and we need to be guided by them. This is a lie. Who knows better than a small business owner what is needed for small business to thrive? Who knows better than a minority what is happening in their communities and the challenges they face? Who knows better than a college student how difficult it is to get your degree? We all have experiences and ideas that are critical to the success of our country. Even looking on the negative side, how could Congresspersons chosen by lottery do worse than our present elected officials?
I wouldn’t mind seeing a lottery system put into place for appointing House members at the state level, either.
Ostracism – Athens had a safety valve to stop any one individual from growing too powerful – ostracism. Each year all citizens would vote if they wanted to hold an ostracism. If two thirds said yes, then tow months later the ostracism was held. Citizens would write the name of the person they wanted banished and if one person got enough votes, they were exiled from Athens for ten years, but did not lose their property or citizenship. In theory, this could happen every year. In practice, it was rarely used.
Just think how this could change the behavior of some of our politicians and citizens if they knew they could be booted off the island for ten years. I would change it a bit from what Athens instituted. I would increase the number of potential ostracisms to 5 year year, our population is many times over what Athens was. I would also exempt judges and current political office holders from possibility of ostracism during their time in office. Otherwise we would be having special elections most every year.
The downside of this is I can see it being used to exile celebrities that we are sick of hearing about. I know I would be tempted to cast a vote for Lindsey Lohan.
True democratic voting for major issues – For most every major decision, the citizens of Athens voted yes or no after listening to a debate. They were able to do this because it was a small city and most of its citizens could gather in one place and vote with a show of hands. For a long time, this type of direct democracy wasn’t possible on a national scale in the USA. We couldn’t get information out to the majority of our citizens in a timely manner and just having a Presidential election every four years was difficult.
Now, this is a possibility. I don’t think we could have a nation-wide vote for every law proposed, but we could set a few important things aside that would be reserved for a direct ballot by registered voters. I strongly feel that declarations of war and acceptance of peace treaties should only come to pass with a super majority direct vote. This would mean increased expense and preparation to make this possible, but decisions of this importance should only be made in accordance to the will of the people – especially the will of the very people who are expected to go an fight.
So that’s my wish list. If you could make a few adjustments, what would they be?
I would break the US up into about 10,000 separate communities, so that they’d each be about the size of ancient Athens, and THEN we could have functioning democracies.
No, I’m serious.
I wonder if something like that couldn’t effectively be done by shifting the balance of power back to local government. Every county becomes a country.
I would place 10 year service limits on SCOTUS justices and require their elevation to the Court be the result of a national election, not presidential appointment. The Supreme Court is the only branch of the federal government where those in power are not chosen by the people of the US via open elections, and it is the only branch of the federal government where those in power serve for life… or until *they* choose to step down. Right now we are faced with a situation where 21st century policies are being determined mostly by justices with (at best) mid-20th century attitudes with all the social and economic prejudices the 50′s, 60′s, and 70′s had to offer.
But most concerning of all is that cases concerning modern technology’s uses and abuses are going to be determined by 9 people with admittedly limited understanding of that technology. How can someone who has little to no experience with twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc. truly understand the potential hazards and dangers of cyber-bullying, computer identity theft, digital photo manipulation used for slander or online harassment?
An interesting topic. I like “what if” conversations as a way of clarifying the ideal to work towards and the obstacles to that ideal.
Some commentary on your ideas:
Holding office by Lottery: Such a thing might have some merit, and might be able to avoid certain problems (such as truly unfit people winning to office) if there were checks on its power. I have to say that I don’t know too many average folks who’ve expressed an interest in being part of a governing body (though perhaps this would change if it were more of a real possibility). I’m not sure it would be a good idea to have uninterested people on the governing body, partially because people uninterested in politics are generally uninformed about politics, and our political system is too complicated, I think, for the uninformed to navigate. So, getting average people interested in politics and informed about the system (while also, maybe, reducing the system’s Byzantine complexity) would be a prerequisite. It would also be necessary to reduce the degree to which well-funded special-interests can buy the influence of the lottery-winners.
Ostracism: Not necessarily a bad idea. The problem with this sort of thing underlines one of the problems with democracy in general: that democracy tends to promote what is popular, rather than what is right. Thus, it becomes easy for demagogues to game the system to their advantage, as I think can be seen in the fate of Socrates. I could easily see someone being wrongfully ostracized. Nevertheless, some sort of need for a strong, simple penalty is needed for wrongdoing; I agree with you there.
True democratic voting for major issues: I agree with you in principle on this one, and especially in terms the major issues you mention (and more than those when it comes to local government). The proper working of something like this depends (as with office-by-lottery) on the education of the populace on issues. This requires two things: a better education in civics than most school-age children seem to receive currently; and a system of media that can report facts on important issues with as little bias as possible. Thus, a reform of both education and media would be necessary.
Ahhh…but the citizens of Athens were far less educated than we are.
They were far more interested and willing to actively participate in their government and were willing to shoulder the responsibilities of democracy, not just accept the benefits. This isn’t because they were better, more moral people than we are. Just that there was a different expectations of their citizens. Did all of their citizens always live up to those expectations? No, but just having those expectations meant that more of their citizens made an effort to at least appear to live and act within the community norms. So if we changed our government to expect more active participation from our citizens and that became a cultural norm for us, would we begin to live up to that norm?
Oh….and Jeff’s comment and your response encapsulate why I’m a States’ Rights supporter. (State’s Rights isn’t just about returning power back to states, after all)
“Ahhh…but the citizens of Athens were far less educated than we are.”
Very true. However, they also lived in a community that was, relatively speaking, much smaller and more homogeneous than our country. I think this made them closer to the issues they were deciding on, both geographically and emotionally. Taking 500 people (or so) from a country 10,000 times the size of Athens (using Jeff’s estimate) is much less likely to result in a group of people who have the same sort of will to work collectively on the country’s problems as a whole; and here I’m expressing some sympathy with Ali’s deconstruction of the idea of the U.S. However, that could just be my general curmudgeonliness speaking; it might possibly work.
Concerning the development of a cultural norm of responsible activity in democratic governance, I think that such a thing might be an unalloyed good, particularly insofar as it might shake people out of the culture of distraction and frenzied boredom, lifting their thoughts to more worthwhile things. If the administration were to put your ideas into effect tomorrow, though, everyone who might be selected would need to be brought up to speed on their new responsibilities, which is one part of the “education” I was talking about. The other part is educating children about what their responsibilities will be as adults, both at home and in school, which sets the cultural norm for the next generation.
Concerning State’s rights; as a tribalist, I’m generally in favor of smaller groups with more autonomy, so I’ll probably take your side there.
I have a couple of problems with your suggestions, Cara.
Lottery election has the same problem as term limits: The most experience with how the government actually works, and how to get it to work for you, gets pushed even more into the hands of lobbyists.
Ostracism: The problem here is a complete lack of due process.
Referendums on war and peace: This might have some merit, once we had a population uniformly accustomed to exercising this kind of power. (Eg, Californians are much more accustomed than Ohioans to ballot issues that make the electorate momentarily the state government.) But the potential for abuse on war-and-peace issues is daunting. I daresay people immediately following 9/11 would have been ready to declare war on the Moon if political leadership told them to. And any war damages those waging it, to the point that demagogues could very likely inflame the public to right such perceived wrongs by perpetuating a war that had lost its purpose. (I am here disclosing prejudices about our electorate that I had not heretofore examined. Thank you.) In principle I like the idea of national initiative and referendum measures, as a means of getting us to ponder more issues as a nation rather than as states, counties or ZIP codes. (This probably cuts no ice with a States Rights conservative in her forties…) But I get scared off when I ponder actual recent examples of the exercise of such power on the state level.
Self rule is…daunting to think about.
Baruch, I enjoy your comments and you regularly give me ideas or ways of looking at things worth pondering.
Thank you. [blush]
I am against the idea of the direct democracy for everything for two reasons: 1. Mob rule – when it becomes possible for 51% of the voters to decide that the other 49% don’t have any rights; and 2. Too easy to corrupt. Check out this report http://citp.princeton.edu/voting/advantage/ (and yes, I know it was from several years ago, but it is still relevant).
I think that the lottery is a good idea, much like jury duty, for the reasons you stated – however, some sort of minimum standard would need to be in place so that those who are voting on the laws actually know something about what they are talking about.
Also, in a situation like that, lobbyists would have a LOT more power than they do even today, and it would be a lot cheaper for them – regular people are a lot easier to buy off than politicians, they don’t have as expensive tastes.
I agree with you about straight majority rule, but super majority rule helps prevent some of the excesses that you can see with straight majority.
I go back and forth if lobbyists would have more or less power with a lottery system. I guess it comes down to if you believe most people are corrupt at core (and therefor open to bribes) or that most people aren’t. I go back and forth on that, but usually come down on the side that most people can be corrupted, but that it takes more effort to do so than is normally thought. Plus, the people taking office would be different in motive than those who seek political office. Would this make them more or less open to bribes? I don’t know.
Also…if you have different people cycling through every two years, it is much harder for lobbyists to consistently push in a specific direction than if they have the same person in office for decades. Every two years they would be starting over with new people, trying to gain their trust. These kinds of power dances (lobbyist and politician) take time – think of it as porcupines mating. It’s a tricky and delicate operation, but you can do it if you are willing to take the time. The lottery, with new people every two years, could deprive lobbyists of the time that they need to build relationships with the politicians in the House.
Interesting to think about, though….
Cara, the interaction between the lobbyist and the legislator need not be corrupt to be effective for the lobbyist. If the legislator, because s/he is green as paint, does not know how to negotiate the hoops in Washington or what the science is behind hir committee’s latest problem, and the lobbyist does, the latter will “kindly” show the former how to get by. Gradually the lobbyist can prove “useful” enough to become a trusted guide, and then “guide” the legislator in directions the lobbyist wishes.
Something of this sort goes on already. A complete fresh crop of Congressmembers every term would massively enable the process.
Perhaps under your proposed system, the professional staff of each congresscritter should be employees of the state being represented, and not of the individual office-holder or his/her ‘political party.’ Let them hire one personal adviser or something — from their own state — but the staff answers to the state governor and legislature.
And thus letting the staff be buttered up by the lobbyists?
Are you stating that the novice stafferss who go in with each newly elected politician currently aren’t quickly in the pockets of the lobbyists, paid to “internally” advise the congress critters in whatever way the particular industry wants?
Ok, I’m voting for you first! Smart ideas (granted they were Athen’s ideas) but such actions would clean up our political system.
Just wanted to say I loved this!
For the lottery idea, and those who would be worried about the uneducated being thrust into positions of power, maybe it would make people take our public education system more seriously. My own personal idea would be free schooling up to a Bachelor’s degree if you have the grades to back it up, no having to worry about scholarships or student loans.
Ostracism could be used in a manner similar to impeachment. I also like Kelly’s contribution about the SCOTUS judges. It annoys me to no end that they are appointed and not voted for, while they get the longest terms.
I also like the idea of national voting for important federal issues, with a few caveats. No electoral college BS, and the rights of a minority are never subject to a majority vote (ie: gays’ rights to be treated as equals in government marriage contracts, the right of non-Christians to follow their own religions and not have to follow Christian-specific religious/moral rules, etc.). Too many forget that democracy in the US is not “majority wins,” but rather “majority wins *so long as* the rights of the minority are not infringed upon.”
Just wanted to say I loved this!
For the lottery idea, and those who would be worried about the uneducated being thrust into positions of power, maybe it would make people take our public education system more seriously. My own personal ideal would be free schooling up to a Bachelor’s degree if you have the grades to back it up, no having to worry about scholarships or student loans.
Ostracism could be used in a manner similar to impeachment. I also like Kelly’s contribution about the SCOTUS judges. It annoys me to no end that they are appointed and not voted for, while they get the longest terms.
I also like the idea of national voting for important federal issues, with a few caveats. No electoral college BS, and the rights of a minority are never subject to a majority vote (ie: gays’ rights to be treated as equals in government marriage contracts, the right of non-Christians to follow their own religions and not have to follow Christian-specific religious/moral rules, etc.). Too many forget that democracy in the US is not “majority wins,” but rather “majority wins *so long as* the rights of the minority are not infringed upon.”
There have been days when I felt that the lynching of elected officials by A MOB OF THEIR ACTUAL CONSTITUENTS should be a misdemeanor, and if any non-constituents are detected in said mob, they should face murder-1 charges.
Frankly, I would love to see citizenship being earned rather than handed to someone by accident of birth. Once a person reaches legal age, has graduated high school, and has done 3 years of national service or the armed forces, THEN they should be granted the full priviliges of citizenship, as long as they maintain their responsibilities, including voting, being informed, and CARING. Those too lazy to maintain these requirements shouldn’t enjoy the benefits that participating in your society earns you. Free health care, government pensions and/or social security, etc, etc, should be an excellent motivator to participate in the society you are born to. If not, then you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and not mooch off the rest of us.
What do you determine to be national service? I’d like to think service would count as dedicating toward the local community, which does enhance the national community. I’m a big believer in taking care of our own back yard – first and foremost. But of course, the service requirement would have to be more than just tossing over a bag of clothes for a non-profit charity once a year. (I’d say x amount of hours sorting and laundering said clothes would be apt, but again, how many hours?) Everyone has different physical capabilities, but we’re all good at /something/.
And no, I’m not at all going to agree to only being allowed to work for something created by government, nor would many others. That just drips of socialism, which I’m not cool with.
And on that tangent, which charities would count toward service? Public? Private? What type of work? Does neighborhood beautification count? While you and I may disagree on the stance of private charities and whether or not they are entitled to 501(c) tax exempt status, many small groups and one-man shows have proven to be solid. Also, could the service be done prior to reaching adulthood? There are lots of kids doing extraordinary things out there that blow away what most adults do, partly because they *can* (meaning, they don’t have grown-up type obligations, like food, clothing and shelter, to worry about.)
You also mention a requirement is having graduated high school. Which diplomas would count? Would GEDs count? Diplomas from private schools? Homeschools? Do they have to only be from accredited schools? Do the students have to wait until they’re 18 to graduate? In my state, only public school teachers need to be certified, and a diploma issued by the parent to his/her children are accepted equally as one issued by a public school, with barely any regulations or oversight. (I believe Texas, Alaska and Arizona are just, if not more, as flexible.)
Unfortunately, what you propose, while I tend to agree with it in theory, is just as open to loopholes and corruption as the system we currently have. There are a lot of lazy people out there, as you already acknowledge, and there are equally as many greedy ones.
- A charity supervisor can be asleep at the wheel or bribed into signing off on something.
- Charities can be opened up just for the sole purpose of fulfilling obligations.
- People already get “fake” diplomas and GEDs all the time.
Alternately, this degree of oversight is reliant on the supervisors to judge fairly. We’ve all had a teacher or boss who was just “out to get us”, after all. Imagine what it would be like to have your very citizenship denied based on some person not liking something about you, like oh, I don’t know – your religion? Your race? Your sexual orientation? It’s a much bigger deal than getting fired from a job, because you can always get another job or at least unemployment compensation. Sure, it can always go through the courts, but that doesn’t guarantee justice, and many people can’t afford the time and/or legal fees to begin with.
It also begs to question what becomes of people who for one reason or another cannot comply with your citizenship requirement? Where do they go? Jail? Detention camps? The streets? The underground workforce?
If anything, your proposal just introduces *more* red tape, which of course has the benefit of creating more jobs, albeit bureaucratic ones. I’d rather we CUT as much red tape as possible and streamline things, especially now that we have much better technology to do so, than start up more.