Essay by Loyd Ackerman (ackerman1@charter.net)
Abstract: This essay outlines a proposal for reforming the process of selecting members of both houses of the United States Congress. The problems confronting citizens are briefly described and then a solution is offered to address those problems by virtue of an amendment to the United States Constitution. The concept is radical and isn’t expected to be supported by either major political party since the parties are largely left out of the process.
There are many problems in the current system of selecting our elected government entities. The system requires even the most honest politician to prostitute him or herself in the process of getting elected to these offices. Campaign contributions and political fund raising schemes of other sorts are a major factor in the corruption of our government. We’ve seen the difficulty, over the past attempts to reign in these practices, of even defining the process without going afoul of the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech.
My personal belief regarding the practice of campaign contributions to individual members of the government is that any contribution is corrosive and corruptive of the governing process. It’s illogical for one entity to give funds to another without expecting a benefit, however indirectly, from the gift. An organization funds, endorses, or otherwise promotes a legislator in the belief that legislator will vote favorably to their cause. The current system of selecting legislators requires large sums of cash to fund election campaigns. Often the candidate that accumulates the most cash is elected in no small part by being able to finance extensive and expensive campaigns. The result is that a great deal of their time is devoted to fund raising and campaigning rather than tending the nation’s business.
Organizations from labor unions to the AARP seek advantage from legislators by funding so called educational campaigns which more often than not are a method of giving advantage to one cause, candidate, or party. Media ads funded by these organizations usually stay just inside of the boundaries set by law but often venture beyond what’s allowed by law at the risk of what amounts in most cases to a slap on the wrist. Seldom is the message missed that the ad is a plea for viewers to vote for a certain candidate or in a certain way. Again, the Supreme Court has found that these organizations – labor unions, social associations, or corporations – have the constitutional right to state their beliefs in whatever media they choose.
All of the above, and much else, has resulted in the citizenry having a low regard for the Congress that we have sent to the capital to do our business. Conventional wisdom used to be that citizens pretty much thought that their own Representative or Senator is not the problem, but current polling by Rasmussen Reports doesn’t show that to be so [reference 1]. However, it is probably true that in most cases the individual lawmaker isn’t the problem. So what is? The only logical answer is that “the system” is the problem.
I’ve been thinking for a long time about how to deal with this situation and have some ideas whose time may have come. I realize that I’m just a citizen with no experience whatsoever in government, but I am a voter and have voted in many elections over the decades since eligible. I admit to boycotting a few given the choices I thought I was given, but since that unfortunate era I’ve come to realize a few axioms of how democracy works in a republican form of government not the least of which is that we may be faced, on election day, with choosing the lesser of two – or sometimes more – evils. The question, in other words, would be whether you would rather have the candidate whose policies are closer or further from those you believe to be the best for the good of the country, or in more parochial terms, best for your personal good. We are sometimes given a choice, in primary elections, of which candidate of a few competing will represent our chosen party. In most general elections we are given the choice of the Democrat or the Republican. The candidates are therefore, by definition, members of the political class or at least aspire to be. The problem with this condition is that we are either perpetuating the political class or propelling new blood into it. But once the new blood is in the seat their inclination is to perpetuate their possession of the seat; hence, they become part of the political class.
We like to think that by choosing one party over another, we choose the form of representation that represents us best; but while one or more of a given party’s platform planks may suit us, we are likely to prefer some of the planks from the other party’s platform. While there is little hope of finding a party that suits all our preferences, by choosing one or the other available party we are likely to be supporting positions we oppose – even strongly so. The dominance of the legislative branch by political parties ensures a loss of the connection with the citizenry required of true representative government.
If one believes the political polls, the actual policies of the predominant parties are seldom aligned with those of the population at large [reference 2]. It’s not hard to conclude that the political class becomes more and more isolated from their constituents as the members of that class remain in office. One may conclude that this is a good outcome of the system since these legislators become educated in the issues at hand by virtue of their longevity and that enables them to make more informed decisions. However, that isn’t what the democratic process is supposed to be. The notion that a large cadre of elitist, whatever their governing principals or positions in the government, should make the decisions for the population at large is not very different from a single party system; be it communist, fascist, technocracy, or one of new invention.
The fact that a political class exists is exemplified in an article in the September 2010 issue of the American Legion Magazine [reference 3]. A breakdown of the current U.S. Congress is presented in an article appropriately named “Congress, by the numbers”. There are a few striking statistics quoted: One is the average length of service by Representatives (11 years) and Senators (12.9 years). Another statistic noted is, 13 former governors, 38 former mayors, and 268 former state legislators. More striking though is that 115 former congressional staffers and 12 former White House staffers are current members. That these people are knowledgeable about how the legislative process works isn’t the point. The question is whether they are ‘representative’ of the U.S. citizenry. All of these statistics suggest that a large portion of these people are citizens of a political class; an elite group of people who populate the centers of power from state houses to the federal capital. Even if their motivations are pure, it’s doubtful that they can be in tune with their constituents. It can be argued that they owe their tenure not to their constituents but to their knowledge of how the system works and how to exploit it.
The phenomenon of being perpetually in campaign mode aligns the members of both houses more with the special interest groups representing various interests sometimes far removed from the wishes of the members’ constituencies. Moreover, since the leadership of both ruling parties has its own agenda and wields considerable influence over individual members, the member finds himself or herself aligned with measures not in their constituent’s best interest or being ostracized by their leadership.
Sometimes we have more than the two parties involved in our elections, but seldom do the usurpers rise to the point of being fairly represented in the election process. Given that both house of Congress occupy separate sides of the floor divided into Democrats and Republicans, even if a third party were to gain recognition at the state level, its candidates would still be orphaned when they arrive in Washington, finding themselves awash in a sea of major party members. Similarly, those members who claim to be independent will ultimately align with one of the parties in order to have a say in governance with more than just their vote.
It remains to be seen whether the latest attempt in organizing voters, the so called Tea Party, will be able to influence politics in any lasting way. There seems to be no coherent course of action in their movement other than to defeat incumbents. While most Tea Party members view themselves as conservatives and thus more aligned with the Republican Party; many, while being conservative in belief, are unhappy with both parties. Few it seems are interested in forming a third political party as such. That strategy would probably not work anyway since there are many factions in the movement and many conflicting motivations of the members. The result of having an established Tea Party would likely devolve into just another political party in the end anyway – new members of the political class.
The benefit of having a two party system is believed by most to be that, more times than not, neither party can dominate. The belief continues that this fosters debate and compromise. That perception has been correct to a point through much of our history, but there have been times when the parties have grown so far apart that the system breaks down. The mitigating result of either party having a dominating majority is that they seem to overreach by bludgeoning legislation through – and as a result of not being able to suit a majority of the citizenry – will soon suffer defeat at the polls. Hence, the republic lives on albeit with intervals of pain to the oft times poorly represented citizens. Unfortunately, legislation once passed and signed into law is very difficult to undo and becomes the new status quo. Efforts to correct errors are more likely to be just tweaks around the edges. A good example of this is the federal tax structure. Once a change is in place, citizens adapt their financial plans and strategies accordingly and the change becomes very difficult, or impossible, to undo.
The concept of seniority – adopted by both houses – perpetuates the elitist bent of both houses since the leadership will always be made up of the survivors of the election process. The result is that certain individual members become powerful enough to control legislation and attach earmarks – the bridges to nowhere concept – the purpose of which is to buy the votes of constituents thus perpetuating their longevity and reinforcing the existence of a political class.
Although I suspect that some will call this thought heretical, it should be obvious that there are disadvantages to a two party system or, for that matter, a system made up of any number of parties in which members are swept up in party driven strategies and policies. It would seem that a better representation of the citizens would be served if each member of the legislature were to vote independently, representing the will of the people they represent. It seems that the nation’s founders would have had that in mind when framing the Constitution. In the party system, the representation of the citizens is compromised by the allegiance to the party of the member.
President George Washington himself was opposed to political
parties or associations, believing them to:
“serve
to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put,
in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a
small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according
to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public
administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of
faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by
common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.”
"However
combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer
popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become
potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be
enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the
reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted
them to unjust dominion." [Reference 4]
Considering the current state of affairs in Washington DC, it
would seem that President Washington’s foresight was no less than prophetic.
One alternative to a multi-party system, a one party system, seems onerous without further consideration. We need only to look at the track record of current or past communist states, the absolute monarchies or theocracies, or any of those governments made up of oligarchies to eliminate that from consideration.
Despite the inertia imposed by the status quo, there is a solution available should we be bold enough to take it. Here is a way that a movement like the Tea Party can actually overcome the status quo by separating their various beliefs and proposals from the objective of recognizing and solving the problems of non-representative government. In going after this goal, the members of the Tea Party must focus on the one goal of changing the way we select our representatives in the Federal government. If we continue to try to just “throw the rascals out” we’ll just end up with a new caste of rascals with a new political class to rule us rather than a truly representative government.
There exists in our country a system for selection which serves well. Juries are selected by random processes from members of each community. A jury pool is gathered by randomly selecting members from various data bases; e.g. voter registrations, driver’s license lists, tax records, etc. A jury is selected from the available jurors in the pool to serve in trials or the grand jury. These juries are, by definition, representatives and peers of the citizens. These people have the solemn responsibility of deciding the fate of their fellow citizens in justice system cases ranging from settling property disputes to determining life or death of perpetrators in capital crimes. This system seems to me to be a better choice than to have professional politicians constantly in the campaign mode raising money to perpetuate their political career. If you don’t immediately agree, consider a situation in which juries would be selected from a group of professional politicians with motivation to continue their careers. Would we expect those individuals be motivated to provide the deliberative objective judgment in each case presented or would they be influenced by their career goals?
With this background, I propose an amendment to the United States Constitution.
Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
of America
This amendment shall govern the selection of members of both houses of the Congress of the United States of America and direct the approach to informing the members of pertinent facts to consider in decisions on enactment of legislation.
The governor of the state in which each U.S. Congressional district is located shall choose Election Committees for each district composed of seven (7) citizens from each district to oversee and conduct the electoral process. Selection of the Election Committee shall be at random from the list of qualified voters who have voted in the past four (4) general national elections in which a President of the United States has been elected. The members of each district shall elect a foreman for their committee. Members of the election committee shall sign and swear an oath or affirmation of impartiality and confidentiality.
A State Election Committee shall be composed of the foremen of each congressional district election committee. In the event of states having less than seven (7) congressional districts, the State Election Committee shall be composed of seven (7) members of the district election committees. After each election committee has chosen a chairman, the Governor of the state shall, by random selection, fill the remaining vacancies from the remaining members of the committee. The State Election Committee shall elect from their number a chairman who will moderate the committee’s deliberations.
Members of the House of Representatives shall be selected for a single term of two (2) years by the following method:
A pool of candidates for the representatives for each Congressional district shall be drawn by the Election Committee from the voter registration records of that district. The drawing shall be by random selection from a complete list of all living current residents of the district who have voted in the past four (4) general national elections in which a President of the United States has been selected. The drawing shall continue until three voters have been selected who meet the criteria set forth below:
1. The voter must be a citizen of the United States and of no other country.
2. The voter must have a high school or equivalent education.
3. The voter must be physically capable of serving.
4. The voter must be of sound mind having no history of mental dementia.
5. The voter must consent to represent the district for the period of two (2) years by attendance in Congress when it is in session.
6. The voter must submit to the Election Committee a resume’ in the form of a questionnaire for use in the general election.
7. The voter must sign a pledge and swear to adhere to the rules of the election process and to accept no compensation other than that authorized by the House of Representatives and paid from the United States Treasury.
The Election Committee shall publish the resumes of the voters, now candidates, in the appropriate media for that district for consideration of the voters.
Qualified voters of the district shall choose by plurality from the three candidates a representative to be sent to the Congress. In the event that the candidate chosen shall not be able to serve the entire term, the candidate with the second most votes shall become the representative, and in the event that he/she is unable to serve, the candidate with the least votes shall become the representative.
In the event that a vacancy is none the less at hand in the House of Representatives, the Election Committee extant for the election from which the vacancy occurred, shall reconvene to repeat the process of selection.
As each Senate seat becomes available, one Senator shall be selected to replace the outgoing Senator. Members of the Senate shall be selected for a single term of six (6) years by the following method:
A pool of candidates for the Senate shall be drawn by the State Election Committee from the voter registration records of that state. The drawing shall be by random selection from a complete list of all living current residents of the district who have voted in the past six (6) general national elections in which a President of the United States has been selected. The drawing shall continue until three voters have been selected which meet the criteria set forth below:
1. The voter must be a citizen of the United States and of no other country.
2. The voter must have a high school or equivalent education.
3. The voter must be physically capable of serving.
4. The voter must be of sound mind having no history of mental dementia.
5. The voter must consent to represent the district for the period of six (6) years by attendance in the Senate when it is in session.
6. The voter must submit to the State Election Committee a resume in the form of a questionnaire for use in the general election.
7. The voter must sign a pledge and swear to adhere to the rules of the election process and to accept no compensation other than that authorized by the Senate and paid from the United States Treasury.
The State Election Committee shall publish the resumes of the voters, now candidates, in the appropriate media for the state for consideration of the voters.
Qualified voters of the state shall choose by plurality from the three candidates a Senator to be sent to the Congress. In the event that the candidate chosen shall not be able to serve the entire term, the candidate with the second most votes shall become the representative, and in the event that he/she is unable to serve, the candidate with the least votes shall become the representative.
In the event that a vacancy is none the less at hand in the Senate, the Election Committee extant for the election from which the vacancy occurred, shall reconvene to repeat the process of selection.
The outgoing members of each house shall assign a transition committee to administrate the transition for new members elected under the provisions of this amendment. This committee shall be limited in term to the transition’s completion as determined by the new Congress in session.
This amendment establishes the Legislative Research Agency (LRA). The LRA shall be a non-political, non-partisan, and non-aligned agency of the Congress of the United States. The LRA shall research each issue before Congress and provide factual non-biased pertinent information to consider in decisions on enactment of legislation. The Congress, by law, shall determine the makeup and governance of the LRA and shall from time to time as appropriate review the operations and qualifications of its members. The LRA shall take its direction from the Congress in the form of resolution or other form as deemed appropriate by the Congress then in session.
There are some aspects of the amendments that may need explaining.
Election Committees: The prime qualification for a member of Election Committees has been given as a qualified voter who has voted in “the past four (4) general national elections in which a President of the United States has been elected.” This generally ensures that the Committee member has participated in the democratic process for a minimum of 16 years; a measure of sincerity and maturity as well as the understanding of the electoral process. The number of members of each committee is given as seven (7) to have a critical mass without the chance of a tie. Any larger group might cause difficulty in reaching a consensus. A smaller group increases the risk of conspiracy or of a dominant member determining outcomes.
Members of the House of Representatives: The prime qualification for a voter to become a candidate is for him/her to have voted in “the past four (4) general national elections in which a President of the United States has been elected.” The rationale for this qualification is the same as given for the committee member. The objective is to provide a candidate who has participated in the electoral process showing sincerity, maturity, and an understanding of the process.
Members of the Senate: The selection process is the same with the only difference being that the voter must have voted in six (6) prior presidential elections – 24 years as a voter. The reason for the increased number is the difference in term of the office and the desire to have more mature members in the Senate.
A valid argument can be made that members chosen by this method will be amateurs to the political process. That is precisely the objective of this process. The new Congress would decide on a methodology of operation. Given the term limits embedded in the amendment, it would be expected that the new Legislative Research Agency (LDA) would replace the current group of congressional aides employed for their expertise in the various disciplines (e.g. defense, space, agriculture, etc.) with civil service employees reporting to the Congress at large, rather than be tied to a given member of the Congress or the Senate. Freeing the expertise from the individual members, or political parties, would serve the general purposes of the Congress rather than the individual political aspirations of the member to whom they are staffed. The LRA would seek and heed peer review from experts in the relevant fields. The agency would be overseen, directed, and audited by Congress.
The LRA might be similar to the current Government Accountability Office (GAO) – an independent, non-aligned, non-partisan agency. This new agency would be tasked to inform the elected members, preparing them for related votes, but not aligned with any one member or group of members. The members of the legislative branch would thus be focused on deciding legislation based on facts provided by experts and vetted by peer review.
The new Congress once in session would decide the extent and role of the staff required by each Senator and Representative to carry out their administrative and communication duties.
The arguments that will be used against the system proposed, including selection of the legislative branch and the LRA as their primary source of information will be many and varied; however, the perceived shortcomings of the system can be corrected by statutory action of the new Congress.
A primary argument will be that a bunch of amateurs could not be expected to comprehend the complexities of governing nor of the detailed nature of legislation. That argument has a major flaw in that it assumes that 435 members (in the case of the House of Representatives) randomly selected from a pool of literate citizens that have voted in at least 4 presidential elections are incapable of comprehending information supplied from a non-aligned source well enough to debate the issues that arise and make informed decisions. A proposition, in my view, that is preposterous. If that were so, we’d have to admit that since the outcome of our general elections were similarly flawed – after all, the electorate in those elections don’t even need to meet the minimal requirements included in the selection process proposed in the Constitutional Amendment -- and thus a democratic process of selecting leaders isn’t itself viable.
Another argument is that these neophyte representatives are in no position based on their familiarity with the issues of common legislation – example: financial regulations – to ‘write the text’ for the legislation. But that is not the role of the Congressman nor should it be. If we delve into the methodology of writing legislation, we’ll find that we do not depend on the actual House member or Senator to write the legislation. The actual text is written by either their staff expert or, more likely, a member of a lobbying group representing an action committee of some entity from the industry to be regulated or in opposition to that industry (aka. “A special interest group” or “Political Action Committee”).
In one scenario, members of Congress would turn to the LRA with a perceived issue (e.g. the here-to-for mentioned financial regulation) directing a definition of the problem, alternative corrective actions with pros and cons of the alternatives, and recommendations. Given a report back date in the directive, the LRA would present their report to the Congress. Congress then could debate the facts given and take appropriate action to either have a vote or send the report back for clarification.
In another scenario, the President could send a bill to Congress. Congress in turn would turn to the LRA to prepare a report by a date certain after which the Congress would take appropriate action; e.g. send the report back for clarification, send the report to a committee, debate the issue, any combination of these. The objective, of course, would be a final up/down vote by both houses of the full Congress.
Not complete yet. Rev 3 --
September 14, 2010 LLA
References:
1. Rassmusen Report --
August 19, 2010
2. Rassmusen Reports
February 24, 2010 – 71% Give Congress poor rating.
3. American Legion Magazine
– September 2010 page 62.
4. Taken from: Golden
Nuggets of U. S. History -- The Blue Quill Series – Concord Learning Systems