Democracy by Lot

If you've ever looked at the sad state of leadership in this (or any other) country and thought, "I could do better than that!", I agree.  You could do better than that, and if we lived in an actual democracy, you would have the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is.  But none of us who select our representatives by plurality from candidates put forth by nomination of a party do live in a true democracy, because the party system, for all of its advantages and conveniences in an ideal world is in practice a terribly undemocratic way to select our leaders.  Particularly in the land of Democracy, the un-democratic bully of the world, the United States.

Proof is all around us.  In the US, mid-term elections are tomorrow.  Already $2 billion has been spent from extra-partisan PACs-- a record for a non-presidential election made possible by a Supreme Court decision (Citizens United) in 2010 that essentially protected unlimited political donations from corporations as free speech.  The result is a cacophony of negativity dominating the interstices between segments of our news and entertainment programs-- a vile non-stop parade of one horrifying character assassination after another, each cancelling the other out; the winner being the PAC with the biggest pot for the most unavoidable pattern in the carpet.  In practice, this is not the PAC representing the broadest possible interests, but normally only the narrowest of interests on topics of primary concern particularly to the deepest pockets that keep them funded.   This is not to suggest that the negativity doesn't bleed into the news coverage as the conversation takes shape around the tropes that money would like us to pay attention to.  

As for voting itself, can it be trusted?  Is it fair?  Does it reflect our wishes?  For a variety of reasons, the waters are muddied now-- which is becoming true when elections are rigged and even when they are not.  Across the US, one of our parties -- the Republican one--  is actively in the process of dismantling and straitjacketing the possibility of free and fair elections.  Why?  In the name of securing "free and fair elections" which they define as elections in which Republicans (the party of the dominant oligarchic minority) win.  The assurance of this, sadly for the planet, for the people and for human rights, necessarily entails the suppression of democratic votes, which is achieved through a variety of measures such as limiting how and when votes can be cast-- e.g., only during working hours on a workday; the gerrymandering of districts to consolidate Republican voters and diffuse those most likely to vote for Democrats; requiring voter IDs, the procurement of which can be time consuming and costly for those that society keeps at the bottom of the economic ladder; and if that's not enough to deter them, legal harassment up to and including entrapment, prosecution and imprisonment for infractions of arcane very selectively enforced voter fraud ordinances.  In pursuit of a lock on voting procedures across the country Republicans have for years been actively and very successfully working to take over oversight of local elections state by state in their truly frighteningly effective way and they will succeed thanks to control of state legislatures and supreme courts even in the least expected places-- in moves that even if they are challenged are likely to stand thanks to a very partisan republican hold on the Supreme Court of the United States. But the sentiment that leaving democracy to the people is dangerous is not restricted to one party.  A strong contingent of neo-liberal democrats regularly work hand in hand with media concerns to undermine challenges from the more populist impulses from the fringes of the party and many openly advocate for a democracy of the meritocracy on the theory that the benefit of the wisdom of the deserving will trickle down to the unmeritorious masses. 

The net effect of this chaos at the voting booth and control of the ballot and of the outcomes is that this neoliberal ideal of democracy by elites is to a great extent the reality,  See how great it's working?  It is no wonder that so many don't vote (for which the elites are thankful), and that even those of us who vote in hopes of preventing the worst outcome rarely get anything more from the process than severe anxiety and justifiable dread about the direction our country is taking.

There is a solution.  It's called sortition-- democracy by lot.  Let elections be decided not by money but by fate.  In short, what if we elected our leaders from among each and every one of us not by majority or plurality vote for a handful of names offered by parties, but from among all the members of the citizenry by a certified random selection process. We are already familiar with the concept of this from our jury system in which we are periodically selected for duty by lottery (based on certain qualifying criteria).  What I am talking about is rule by citizens  (among whom could very well at any time be you or me) selected by a chance process. The practice, still trotted out these days from time to time for special purposes such as "citizens' commissions" in Europe in particular, was more widespread in ancient times particularly in Greece, and from renaissance times in Italy -- Florence, Lombardy and Venice specifically-- but candidates were generally selected from only among land owning males.  Nothing about the notion requires that however, and of course here and there it was designed to take the fullest advantage of its most appealing potential attribute, inclusivity.  Most charmingly, according to Wikipedia, "Local government in parts of Tamil Nadu such as the village of Uttiramerur traditionally used a system known as kuda-olai where the names of candidates for the village committee were written on palm leaves and put into a pot and pulled out by a child."  I'd be in favor of something like that in this country-- but only if the names in the pot were from everyone in the community.  

How does this work?  The procedures for it require that eligibility for selection be agreed upon and that the method for selection be transparent and accepted.  Both of these simple requirements are opportunities for disagreement.  On the matter of transparently random selection, I have ideas of my own but am open to suggestion.  On the contentious matter of eligibility, several possibilities present themselves.  There will no doubt be those in favor of restricting it to much the same class of people we are stuck with now at the top, much as the Greeks and Italians did.  Alternatively there is certainly something to be said for making it wide open and voluntary.  Volunteering oneself for the possibility of being selected is no guarantee of being selected, so opportunities and incentives for corruption are limited on this side of the equation. Even so, one can easily imagine restrictions and suppression on qualifications and the process of volunteering evolving to the point at which the self-selection of volunteers trends toward a homogeneous pool of names-- a situation which should be engineered against.    

For my part, for American democracy by sortition, I would advocate for true random selection from among the set of Everybody in the US, with the barest minimum of requirements for eligibility (age, opt outs based on special circumstances, a notion of who qualifies based on citizenship, for instance).  I would not exclude the incarcerated or the undocumented.  I would in fact be in favor of involuntary participation for all permanent  residents above the age of -- let's say 13-- and voluntary participation of non-permanent, but long-term current residents in the country.

What I am advocating is that for our representation in government, we pull random names out of a hat, such that you and I have just as much of a chance at running things for a change as Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell.  The end of money in politics-- a cure for the corruption of campaign finance.  Random selection also means representational democracy--  a government that reflects the makeup of the population by every demographic, by all income levels, by social relations, by height, by weight, by interests, by musical taste, by eye color, by handedness.  Representation for all instead of just the 16,000 households (not mine, and none of them likely to be yours either) that the 2 parties currently represent, and who are already over-represented.  Aside from the abolishment of parties (Get Rid of Them!), I see no reason to tamper too much with the structure of our legislatures at this stage-- this is merely a fix for the selection process, which I would predict would in short order begin to result in a fix for the governing. 

And why stop at the legislature?  We should select the president (or perhaps an executive committee), the cabinet, our judges from circuit court to supreme court the same way.  The terms for each  would be short and staggered so that at any time every branch of government would be run by fresh, perhaps hesitant and reluctant hands as well as by those who know the ropes but who will not be entrenched.  Would some of the selected suck at the job?  Yes! Would some take advantage of the opportunity to enrich themselves to the extent of dereliction of their duty to their fellow citizens?  Yes! Would many refuse to serve?  Yes!  And what's your point?  This is different from the current situation, how exactly?  The certainty that random selection will result in some bad apples or duds is why terms are short and do not repeat (already a vast improvement-- a fix-- of the current system in which incumbency advantages the worst of the lot to remain in place to suck indefinitely).  Is it worth it to ensure that our representatives truly represent us?  Yes! Yes! and Yes!  

I imagine we would naturally structure our civic education in a way that would prepare each of us to the extent of our abilities for the possibility of being selected to serve.  But this is hardly as important as the possibility for each of us that our raw ideas will be heard without being drowned out by money or prevented by corrupt control of the limited interests that partisan politics enable. The result I am convinced would be better, more representational government that is less bought, less professional and more creative in coming up with and implementing solutions for the real challenges that actually face all of us.  And as I have said elsewhere, the principles of sortition applied to government could also be applied to other troubled and troubling areas of our failed democracy: the military, the constabulary and industry for starters.  Imagine if instead of shouting into the darkness about crime for instance, you were for a brief period of time given some degree of charge over it as a randomly selected one-term officer of the peace.

I do not have time, patience or credentials to make a scholarly, bullet proof case for the practice.  I present this to you merely in an effort to get the concept before you.  I am convinced that this quite obvious cure for democracy will never make it past this blog post.  But you can't blame a guy for trying.