Randomly selected House?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-19 12:42am

Do you think that reform to a randomly selected House would improve the American Republic? As it stands now the House is really even less representative of the American people than the Senate, a gerrymandered body where districts constantly become more polarized in either direction, and Representatives can easily win elections without serious challenges due to "redistricting" which modifies their districts to create massive Republican or Democratic constituencies. The Senate, though, now popularly elected on a Statewide basis to fixed terms, is representative at least of whole states, if states themselves due to their nature allow for domination of minority viewpoints by populous urban centres.

So - Should we reform the House and eliminate elections for it entirely? What I'm proposing is to randomly select the Representatives for the House of Representatives. We keep the Senate the same, but in the House, the Representatives would be randomly chosen from the whole voting populace. Terms would be reduced to one year, and there would be a one-term limit - This would very much a citizen democracy thing (Though of course you could run for another office afterwards if you wished without restraint).

Any citizen would be eligible who is registered to vote, and presumably computers would do the selecting with a series of cross-checks and protections to insure fairness, along with the necessary amendment allowing for outside monitoring of the process. If we can have electronic ballot machines it's reasonable to think such a process as is this feasable as being insurable and fair. The computers could, of course, simply eliminate those who had already served from consideration when making the next random selection.

I think it has the potential - if we could work it out - to create a genuinely representative People's House; not controlled by politicians at all, but people who rather are required to serve for a year and represent the nation in doing so. Of course, they'd get the same salary the House currently gives itself, which for the average American is a pretty good recompense for a year's work in a plush office! Likewise, the potential oddities of such a House would be balanced out by the fact that the Senate would remain the same.

What do you all think?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-03-19 12:52am

Fuck no. It would be even worse than it is now. Think jury duty on a larger scale.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-19 12:55am

Howedar wrote:Fuck no. It would be even worse than it is now. Think jury duty on a larger scale.

The average person wouldn't want to make 150,000 dollars to help decide the fate of their nation, end up in the national limelight and voice their opinion on issues? That's rather different than jury duty.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-19 01:03am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Howedar wrote:Fuck no. It would be even worse than it is now. Think jury duty on a larger scale.
The average person wouldn't want to make 150,000 dollars to help decide the fate of their nation, end up in the national limelight and voice their opinion on issues? That's rather different than jury duty.

So what would it be? 4 people randomly selected from each state?

What age limits are you putting on it?

Medical limits?

Educational limits?

How about criminal records?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-19 01:05am

No, this new system would have to have proportional representation. A single number of reps p/state is a horrible idea.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-19 01:07am

weemadando wrote:
So what would it be? 4 people randomly selected from each state?

What age limits are you putting on it?

Medical limits?

Educational limits?

How about criminal records?

Well, I said registered voters, so obviously felons wouldn't be in consideration since they lose their civil rights, and if a judge has seen fit to give them back they're obviously qualified in some way or another for consideration. It would be unfair to impose educational limits, and medical ones beyond those currently existing for the chamber would be unnecessary.

The age of suffrage, in this case, would become the age limit. That might have some downsides, but Alexander the Great started conquering the world at eighteen, so theoretically there'd be nothing wrong with an eighteen year old representative. You could probably find eighteen year olds less immature than people like Traficant.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-19 01:09am

Alexander the Great was hardly your typical 18-year old.

And I like Jim Traficant. That guy is funny as hell.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-19 01:09am

Durran Korr wrote:No, this new system would have to have proportional representation. A single number of reps p/state is a horrible idea.

The new system would be totally random. Emphasis on totally. Location or party affiliation of the potential representative would not be taken into account. Just that they were a registered voter.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-19 01:11am

Durran Korr wrote:Alexander the Great was hardly your typical 18-year old.

And I like Jim Traficant. That guy is funny as hell.

Well, if we let Jim Traficant serve in the House for so long, what's wrong with the random selection of a few 18-year olds?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-19 01:15am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Alexander the Great was hardly your typical 18-year old.

And I like Jim Traficant. That guy is funny as hell.
Well, if we let Jim Traficant serve in the House for so long, what's wrong with the random selection of a few 18-year olds?

Have you met an 18-year old boy recently? Generally speaking, they're not the sharpest tacks in the box.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-19 01:19am

Then why do we let them vote?

The system is utterly fair - Everyone who's registered to vote gets an equal chance at holding a position in the House for a single term.

Anyway, some Representatives, Traficant is hardly the only one, are worse than that - And eliminating the political dealing that results from the effort to build a long-term power base would be worth it, since you're not see a material decrease in the quality of the people.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-03-19 01:26am

Remember, you're picking from the whole population... You'd probably have more people who are 18+ than those who are 18. I'm a bit unsure about just randomly picking from registered voters, because, to be honest, I really don't want high school drop-outs running the country, even if it were a small portion of the representatives...

I would rather choose who I want running the country, not let it fall into the hands of chance.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-03-19 01:26am

Interesting idea, a return to Athenian Democracy. Theproblems for me is the limit to one year terms of office and the age limit. One year is often far to short to really achieve anything given the size and scope of the US governments reach. Now , your local crop of 18 year olds may be outstanding, but the ones I know, Jesus, I wouldn't want them on the House Armed Services Committee or attempting to review a Finance Bill.

In the end though the achillies heel of all of this is the basic level of ignorance in the general population on how the machine of government even works, hell 60% of the population cant tell you any one of the nine Supreme Court Justices, or how Bills become laws, judicial review or even basic Constitutional theory. No, true Democracy requires a throughly educated , or very small, populace in order to work. Remember even Athenian Democracy was not truly all encompassingly democratic, only male citizens, thoes who owned property or were free men could vote or hold office, thus again excluding women and the large indentured servant, tenent farmer and slave underclasses , aroung 70% of the greater populace.

Republic style , represative democracy, with all its flaws is the only way to govern a large diverse populace without resorting to force of arms.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-19 01:30am

Then why do we let them vote?

Because they can be drafted and sent to Vietnam to get their jaws shot off. That doesn't make them, by and large, intelligent voters.

The system is utterly fair - Everyone who's registered to vote gets an equal chance at holding a position in the House for a single term.
Anyway, some Representatives, Traficant is hardly the only one, areworse than that - And eliminating the political dealing that results from the effort to build a long-term power base would be worth it, since you're not see a material decrease in the quality of the people.

I think this will just make politics even more short-sighted and selfish than it already is. Some dude you just pull off the street and give a six-figure job to isn't likely going to be interested in doing his civic duty, he is going to be interested in grabbing as much goodies for himself and the people of his locality as possible. He doesn't have anything to worry about; he'll be out of there in a year and he has no incentive to behave himself (no chance of reelection, after all), why bother with anything other than short-sighted policies?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-19 01:40am

Durran Korr wrote: I think this will just make politics even more short-sighted and selfish than it already is. Some dude you just pull off the street and give a six-figure job to isn't likely going to be interested in doing his civic duty, he is going to be interested in grabbing as much goodies for himself and the people of his locality as possible. He doesn't have anything to worry about; he'll be out of there in a year and he has no incentive to behave himself (no chance of reelection, after all), why bother with anything other than short-sighted policies?

Why would he try to grab goodies for his district if he had no chance of reelection? People do that to get reelected. Anyway, he wouldn't have a district. He (or she) would presumably follow their own political ideology.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-19 01:42am

Sokar, it would be balanced out against the fact that the Senate would remain unchanged. Also, as for the committees... Hrmm. I'd have to think about how to deal with commitee selection.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-03-19 02:08am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Sokar, it would be balanced out against the fact that the Senate would remain unchanged. Also, as for the committees... Hrmm. I'd have to think about how to deal with commitee selection.

Which in essance would neuter the House in favor of the professional and well entrenched Senate. The Senate would them for all intents and purposes lead the legislative branch, as the State Senators would become the natural shepherds into the wheels of govenment for each new selection of their States Represenatives. It might work with say 2-year terms or possibily longer , but who are you going to find who would want to drop their life, because a computer drew their name out of a hat, for two or more years to go work in Washington? Like other have said this would be jury duty on acid.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-03-19 04:38am

This is an interesting idea academically, but it could never work.

The Senate would resent the House for not having done any work to get there. Sound childish? Well, "Freedom Fries."

Also, I doubt that this House would have the professionalism to get anything done. They would likely bumble and squabble amongst themselves, and would be hard pressed to produce legislation.

Also, I don't really know if this is a good idea, even if it would be feasable...remember that the founding fathers were terrified by tyrrany of the majority. They wanted to protect the people from themselves.
While it's true that there are many Americans who are uneducated, ill-informed, or otherwise ignorant, that does not mean that they deserve to be in a position of power.

EDIT: IMO, the idea would be better if it was somehow worked in as a third house. That way you'd keep the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan, while adding the "Athenian" Plan.
Though I can only see that adding to deadlock.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-03-19 06:52pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Alexander the Great was hardly your typical 18-year old.

And I like Jim Traficant. That guy is funny as hell.
Well, if we let Jim Traficant serve in the House for so long, what's wrong with the random selection of a few 18-year olds?

Because Jim Traficant knew that the Speaker of the House wasn't part of his audio system, unlike the 18 year-old voters.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-03-19 06:58pm

I lengthen your term to two to three years and require at least a high school education, preferably with a high grade in American government courses.

Yes, this takes away the 'utterly random' bit but it also eliminates people who think we are still ruled by King George, Emperor of Indochina.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-19 07:37pm

Maybe randomly selected from applicant who meet a few basic qualifications, and who want to be in the pool of selection.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-20 07:15pm

Random selection from the entire population is a horrible idea. Random selection from the educated population that has proven itself to be capable in atleast some important field (meaning no bullshit philosophers, or the like). We also don't need idiots out on a farm with no grasp on reality running the world.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-20 08:31pm

I think you're underestimating the sheer complexity of the system. Average people don't go into public service for a reason: they wouldn't be able to handle it.

When they tried applying term limits to senators, they found out that it was a bad idea, because you'd get a new influx of freshman senators every few years, who would ultimately end up being controlled by their party and their staff. The new senators had to go to the old senators and ask them what to do, because the old senators couldn't run anymore.

This random selection of the House would have essentially the same effects. Having good intentions for the country is all well and good, but you won't get anywhere unless you can work the system. Unfortunately, the only people who can work the current system are the ones who made it: scumbag lawyers.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-03-20 09:33pm

Well, actually, if some of these scumbag lawyers(and not all lawyers are scumbags) would turn their thoughts to educating the public, the system would not be so mystifying. But then more people would challenge the aforementioned scumbags, thus enlightment is self-defeating.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-20 11:08pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Well, actually, if some of these scumbag lawyers(and not all lawyers are scumbags) would turn their thoughts to educating the public, the system would not be so mystifying. But then more people would challenge the aforementioned scumbags, thus enlightment is self-defeating.

Not mysterious, just stupid.