On Aug 24, 2009, at 12:10 AM, Michael Pollak wrote:
> http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003060.html
> August 18, 2009
> Jury Duty Democracy
> By: Bernard Chazelle
>
> I suggest that all US senators and representatives should be
> picked at
> random among the adult population. Like jury duty. Except that if
> you're chosen you can say no. The job will be prestigious and well
> remunerated, so most lucky winners will say yes.
I'm happy to see this resurgence of a concept--democracy in the original (as Chris Doss noted) and root sense of the word--that I have long (as some LBOists may recall) advocated. Of course the reference to "senators and representatives" is out of place since the unicameral governmental system I propose is *utopian* in every sense of the word. It could only (short of a dictatorial decree by extraterrestrial proconsuls) be established by a revolutionary constituent assembly.
This is the plan:
--a 1,600-member unicameral governing assembly (or "soviet') serving staggered annually chosen eight-year terms. No president or other monarch, not even symbolic.
--the whole adult (14+) population enrolled in the lottery. those who would rather be represented by somebody else can assign their chances to such persons in the pre-electoral period. the moment anyone receives assignments amounting to 0.5% of the population, that person would automatically be chosen and all the assignors' ID #s suspended from the computer's eligibility roster for that year. a "political campaign" would consist of groups trying to persuade sufficient individuals to assign their chances to their candidates, but members of the "soviet" would not be allowed to form durable parties, factions, or caucuses.
--members of the "soviet" would be very generously compensated, but they would be permitted no family income of any sort beyond their compensation (if close relatives are employed their pay would be deducted from that of the representative). Anything resembling the offering of a bribe would be punished most severely.
--individual representatives would seek advice or information from all quarters, but lobbying by established interest-groups (like corporations or political parties) would be forbidden.
--in the first year of their term representatives would participate as non-voting observers of the governmental process. their main job would be to become educated enough, using the Library of Congress and university courses, to participate actively in the debates.
--there would be no term limits
--at the end of their terms representatives of exceptional distinction could be elected by a 90% vote of their colleagues as permanent emeritus (nonvoting) members of the "soviet."
--insane, psychopathic, corrupt or incompetent representatives would be subject to expulsion by a 90% vote of the "soviet."
--governmental administration by the civil service would be controlled and directed through ministers elected from representatives in the second half of their terms and responsible to the "soviet" as a whole and to its appropriate committees.
--all activities of the "soviet" and of the administration would be public and broadcast live over the internet.
--laws passed by the "soviet" would require a 60% affirmative vote and would go into effect only if ratified by majority vote in a popular (electronic, of course) referendum after a one-week period for popular debate and discussion.
--all legal cases would be presided over by panels of three qualified legal experts (judges for criminal cases, with juries, and arbitrators, without juries, for civil disputes) chosen at random for very limited terms from a universe consisting of all lawyers and qualified (by voluntarily taking and passing a suitable examination) laymen.
--local governmental administration would be carried out by scaled- down versions of the national government (modified appropriately to suit local conditions).
> I've given this idea a
> lot of thought, that is, as much thought as one can pack in 2.5
> seconds, so maybe there's a GIANT flaw but here are the pros and
> cons.
> PROS:
> 1. We'd get politicians of average intelligence: no difference
>
Better--we'd get no politicians at all, only real people. Huge
improvement
>
> 2. We'd get politicians of average honesty: huge improvement.
>
Better--we'd get people of average honesty without any incentive to
pursue private interests. Even huger improvement.
>
> 3. We'd get the thin Bell curve tail of lunatics, sex perverts, and
> psychopaths: huge improvement. Right now we get a
> "only-the-crazies-join-the-crazies" power-law distribution that
> produces the Joe Liebermans of the world.
>
Better--they would be thrown out as soon as their nature was
recognizable
>
> 4. We'd get no elections hence no electoral campaigns [except in
> the sense I described above, sm] hence no campaign
> financing hence no lobbyists hence no corporate pimping: huge
> improvement.
>
> 5. We'd get true representation of the American people, and not true
> representation of the super-rich: huge improvement.
>
> 6. We'd get more women and minorities in government. We'd get an
> average of 2 lawyers in all of Congress. Yes, 2! (They'd probably
> sue
> each other and cause no harm.) Again, huge improvement.
>
> 7. If jury duty is any indication, we'd get people who often take
> their
> job seriously: huge improvement.
>
> CONS:
>
> 1. You don't get to choose your representatives. Like today. Right
> now
> you get to choose people but they are not in any way your
> representatives, so there would not be the slightest difference on
> that
> score.
>
but in the system I outlined you *do* get to choose your
representative if enough of you get together to do so. and in any
event if you want someone to represent you, you can increase that
person's chance to be chosen by substituting that ID# for yours.
>
> 2..... I dunno. I am sure there's a second flaw somewhere. You
> have to
> help me here.
The whole notion, as I said, is totally utopian.
>
> PS: I don't recommend this for the US presidency because the
> variance
> is too high.
No president, no problem.
Shane Mage
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos