2-4-23-38-46

The numbers in the title, for those unaware, were the winning numbers to the largest lottery jackpot in American history, a grand total of over $650,000,000. That's a lot of money, even after taxes. But what if there were a lottery that gave away something even grander? And what if they gave it away every few years. The same immense prize every 4 years or so? Sounds pretty crazy to say the least right? And I haven't even mentioned what the prize is. Because what could be a bigger prize than $650,000,000? A billion? A trillion? No, the prize I'm talking about isn't money at all. It's power.

This being an election year, we as Americans are being inundated with ads from political parties and PACs and super PACs and telemarketers and special interests and every other manner of cog in the vast political machine that we have in this country. And maybe it's just me, but it seems we're getting more....disenchanted with it. Now it might be easy to understand. Democracy is a relatively new thing for most of the world but it's here as our nation itself. We've always been a form of democracy. Or at least styled ourselves as such. I'll get to why I say 'styled' in a moment but let's focus on the disenchantment of elections in America. I think we're becoming more disenchanted with elections because we're losing our faith in the ability of elections to really change things. More and more national politics is taking on the role of being one side with two slight variations. I've talked before about elections based on two choices with very littler variation before and this is in the same vein. Because we are so entrenched in a 'two party' system, the parties themselves have been drawing closer and closer together. Sure they might differ on an issue here or there, but by an large they're the same group. Which means that significant change cannot occur. It's no longer built into the system. And if you cannot change things in an election, well how is that really a democracy?

We call ourselves a democracy because we are under the impression that each election brings about choices. But when the choices you're given have the same net effect, it isn't choice at all. Instead democracy should be about the ability of the governed to affect the government. And the easiest way to do that is to get elected. And we all know that the chances of any particular person trying to enter the system against an incumbent are essentially nonexistent. So then how are we to change things? Well I'm glad you asked, because that's the grand prize I was talking about. The Lottery.

The House of Representatives is supposed to be the legislative body that represents the whole of the people. To me it would seem best if the representatives came from that body. And the best way to get new people into the House is a lottery for office. The rules would be simple. You have to be a citizen of at least 5 years in your district, and you have to have filed a tax return in the year prior to the election. We could still even include direct democracy in the process by selecting four eligible candidates from each district, and having them campaign against each other 3-5 months prior to election day. Now in my version of things the term of a House Representative is extended from 2 years to 4 years, so they have a bit more time to settle into things and get used to working as a public servant, but otherwise the position would be the same as today.

What advantages does my system have? Well first and foremost it breaks the power of special interests in elections. No smart business would invest very much into someone who they don't have time to build a relationship with, whose position itself is based primarily on luck, and who won't be holding the position for more than one term. It also would remove the pressure of reelection from the minds of House Representatives. If their position is determined based on luck, then they have no incentive to worry about maintaining it. Instead they can focus their efforts on getting things done. Additionally, because the political makeup of the House would be changing so massively (in theory) every 4 years, you wouldn't have safe votes. And House Representatives would actually have to compromise and cooperate with one another to get something accomplished. Possibly even with people the disagree with on a number of issues. A shocking concept to be sure. Plus there is the added advantage of people who best represent the demographic of the district would most likely be selected in the lottery drawing. Now a good number of districts would need their lines redrawn, because years of gerrymandering has made them far from logical or practical, but the lottery would do away with that too. No point in redistricting to maintain power for one party when the lottery leaves it all up to luck and chance.

Now some might say that this is a pretty severe and arbitrary change. Well, yes it is severe, but its hardly arbitrary. We already use a similar concept for jury duty. And we have a similar concept again for the selective service. We often view the draft as a duty to the state, but why should we not view public office in the same way? Something that some are chosen for, at random, for a term to help serve their country. Same concept. And because of this, it is my hope and belief that we would affect actual cultural change in our country. We would be far more critical of politicians and the political process, because after all, we might have to be a part of it in a couple years. It would, hopefully, drive us to be better citizens in general.

There are of course disadvantages to this system as well. The largest being the possibility of a bad representative being chosen at random. That's certainly cause for concern, don't get me wrong, but we've survived avowed racists, the technologically challenged, the religiously guided, the war mongerers, and a whole slew of other undesirables as representatives, and they had the benefit of being able to be elected again and again and again. With the lottery the longest any district would have to suffer under a bad representative is 1 term. Still a flaw yes, but a mitigated one.

There is also the flaw that people entering office would be inexperienced in a great number of things. This sounds bad, but it's again not as much a problem as one might think. Public officials of the olden days were expected to be the best of us, the most fit to lead based on their merits and their intelligence. But the world was, and this is a very simplistic statement, a smaller place. 200 years ago House Representatives did not need to know the benefits and problems associated with nuclear waste or the reclamation of such waste. They didn't need to concern themselves with 300,000,000 people, or terrorists from across the Atlantic, or copyright protection on the internet. It was easier to be informed and experienced because there was less to be concerned about. We don't have that luxury today and it's a problem that we expect our elected officials to be THAT much smarter than we are. A little smarter, yes. But the information of the world is far too vast for any one government body to be even passingly familiar with all of it. That's where special interests come in. I'll discuss them more later though, as I'm certain that this is the limit of what most of my readers want to hear.

So with that thought in mind, here are the cliff notes. We should embrace the idea of a real democracy where the governed stand a legitimate chance of changing the system and being able to participate in it. To that end the House of Representatives should be determined by a lottery for candidates for each district, so that they may better represent the district as a whole, and to help foster a change in the way we as Americans view the political system. Additionally it would improve our democracy because it would put greater power in the hands of the people.

In my next update I'll move on to the OTHER body in our national legislature; the Senate.