A Congress of Your Peers

Reading the article by By Robert McHenry made me giggle. Just imagine the howls of outrage all over k street.
McHenry suggests adding an

I like it.
He states that this would kill influence peddling in DC and slow down the way business is done in DC.--that being better for us--America is always safer when Congress is on vacation.

Some pros


The articles is a gas and IMHO has some definite Pro's.

Would this have a positive and healthy effect on our government?

Would we as a nation benefit from removing "Professional" politicians from the reigns of power and placing it in the hands of "amatuers"?

Would this severely limit the influence of lobbyists and their power in DC?

Would we as a nation benefit from removing "Professional" politicians from the reigns of power and placing it in the hands of "amatuers"?
As cynical as I am, I still think being a Congress person requires some skills. Politicians need to understand the mechanisms of government, have a broad-ranging understanding of the issues and be able to communicate effectively. True, not every politics has those skills but they help. The House of Representatives is a flawed institution, sure but that crazy idea doesn't fix it. It's like this, would you rather operate on you, an HMO that is looking out for its own self-interest or get a random person off the street?

Would this severely limit the influence of lobbyists and their power in DC?
I don't even think it would do that. If someone is completely ignorant of the issues lobbyists could have much more sway in influencing their decisions. Sure, lobbyists have power now, but people who care enough about politics to make it a career usually have some core beliefs. It's not like a lobbyist is going to convince Barney Frank to vote for a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage. John Q. Public may not have opinons either way so swaying him with a free golf game and $100K might be a whole lot easier.

There was a science fiction novel by Arthur C. Clarke published some years ago called Imperial Earth. In this book, the President of the United States was a purely ceremonial office, and was chosen at random.

As appealing as such an idea might be, it would only make things even worse (unless we remove all power from the randomly selected representatives, as Clarke did.)

As Rancid Uncle has already pointed out, Jane Q. Public is probably more likely to be swayed by outside influences than a professional politician. I also suspect that a random collection of American citizens would be even more likely than the current Congress to make sudden decisions based strictly on emotional appeals. After 9/11, for example, it seems likely that the random Congress would have voted to make war on every nation in the Middle East except Israel.

This suggestion is an interesting piece of satire, but I can't take it seriously.

It would depend-it could be viewed as a longer form of jury duty. If it paid and people thought it was worth it to end their jobs to serve, yes. I'm a little nervous though as people who are selected would perhaps choose to decline for a variety of reasons. If you have a family, you probably won't be fired up to sell your house, move to D.C., and bid any family that is nearby "good-bye" for an arduous two years in the nation's capital. Not only that, but you'd have to give up your job in all likelihood as most people do not work for law firms that allow them to take sabbaticals.




I don't believe it would. I don't believe the problem is "professional" politicians as it is a lack of interest on the part of many people to participate. Those who are "career" politicians have a strong civic ethic and have always been active at all levels o politics for years. Look at any state senator or member of congress, and you will find someone who was active in their respective young democrats/republicans group in college, who have worked on various campaigns, and who genuinely enjoy politics. Those people will always run, nothing that you can do about that. I'm not sure who necessarily constitutes *amateur* politicians. If a person just rails on about government or politicians, yet does nothing to participate or get to know the issues other than a cursory slap on the table-darn right-mindset, I'm not really certain that we would want amateurs in the game in the first place.



I doubt it. People are flattered through attention and I wonder if the *amateurs* wouldn't be even more susceptible to the Jack Abramoffs and people like that than the current crop of politicians.


I do agree that we do not have a congress of our peers. While I have nothing against millionaires, I wonder why it is that we don't have more teachers, social workers, counselors, construction business owners, and factory workers in the House, which is supposedly "the people's" house. To me, the adequate solution is public financing of campaigns for office. This will work rather than the "choosing reps by lot" thing since people who run, will do so out of a desire to be in the congress. Not only that, but through "check-offs," appropriations, as well as taxes on civil and criminal fines will raise more than enough money for average people to take on wealthier individuals and help to level the playing field to a good degree.

Common Cause has an excellent resource on clean elections laws by state and how various states have taken their own paths to ensure that participation can be increased, and races be made to be more competitive.

Would this have a positive and healthy effect on our government?

This would be a horrible mess. First of all each district has SO many issues that need to be taken care of that it takes about two years to learn and understand these issues. It also takes practice and a lot more time to understand the checks and balance process. Furthermore, these "random" congressman would not be a true representation of the people because the people did not choose to put her there.

Would we as a nation benefit from removing "Professional" politicians from the reigns of power and placing it in the hands of "amateurs"?

As with any job, much of politics is about building and honing relationships. Removing "professional" politicians would mean dissolving longstanding relationship that are in place to effectively get jobs done. Placing government in the hands of amateurs would make Congress a free for all. AND why would this amateur not be corrupt and accept gifts from K Street? In two years they will be gone anyway so they don't have to work to save their job.

Would this severely limit the influence of lobbyists and their power in DC?

NOPE...it would probably increase their influence. Imagine Farmer Bob from West Virginia is the Congressman for two years. You think he wouldn't gladly accept a nice steak dinner or a golf weekend?

Would this have a positive and healthy effect on our government?

Positive effect if done with full modern (or maybe coming future) "information technology", wherein only the "direct issues" were allowed to be treated, and not the horse trading and influence game playing of flesh pressing politics "within congress/gov't". (That would be replaced by the electronic village; even if that is yet to be truly extant. Trying it would be the most effective action I know of to make it extant!)

It could change the focus of representation skills from "working the congressional system" to knowledge of "street issues" from the perspective of "we the people", living "represented with the knowledge base of the represented". One term limit though!

Would we as a nation benefit from removing "Professional" politicians from the reigns of power and placing it in the hands of "amateurs"?

Absolutely! Us "amateurs" are only amateurs relative to "working congress/govt" We are the only experts on "citizenry". I'd like it to be a part of a total all fo us, universal, "everybody does something" gov't service though.

Let's draft us all and have a raffle for who does what, including president, judges, soldiers and jurors! (A really tough one, huh?)

Would this severely limit the influence of lobbyists and their power in DC?

I think so; but, big $$$$'s and big power temptations are hard to eliminate! That's the main reason for my "one term only preference". Where is the truly honest citizen this would require?

Would this have a positive and healthy effect on our government?

I don't think this would be any kind of joke, in fact - with modifications - I think it could be rather a good idea. I've suggested something similar myself before as a replacement for the House of Lords here in the UK.

I don't think it would work very well if you just replaced elected representatives with randomly-selected "polled" representatives for the full current terms. Many people try to excuse themselves from jury duty now because they can't afford the time of work or out of their careers when we're talking about an average 6-12 week time out. How many fewer people would be willing to donate several years of their lives and move to DC?

No, I think the solution is to keep the random selection, but rethink the way the business is ogranised. A group of 15-20 people could be selected and could then sit as a deliberative panel on one particular Bill or issue. All interested parties would have to formally present to this "people's panel" (a rubbish name, but alliterative enough to illustrate what I mean), including affected citizens groups, businesses, trade bodies, and all other lobby-type groups. Civil servants, including legal experts, would advise the panels on crossovers with existing laws and precedents, along with any entanglements with other concurrent people's panels looking at other similar issues.

Pork barrel spending disappears, because - like jury selection - any potential conflict of interest debars a potential panel member from serving on that particular panel (but not necessarily for others). For example, Bostonians don't get to be on a panel deciding whether to federally fund something in Boston (but they do get to present their case, for or against, just like any other interested party.

Any areas of security concern (i.e defence matters) would require panel members to be vetted and subject to the same secrecy and penalties for breaching this secrecy as any elected representative currently is.

And any attempt to exert influence on panel members outside of the panel chamber would be viewed as the equivalent of jury-tampering, would be a very serious offense for both the panel member who accepted the "bribe" and the person funding it, and would automatically lead to a "mis-panel" and mean the whole thing would have to start again with new panel members. So no "undue influence" would be legal.

And it takes politics away from the Beltway hothouse, because there is no earthly reason why such panels don't get to sit in local courthouses all across the country, with panels selected locally, just like juries are.

Would we as a nation benefit from removing "Professional" politicians from the reigns of power and placing it in the hands of "amatuers"?

I think the mix between the two is important. We need both. All-professional politicians tend to end up disappearing into the internecine worlds of the political - the "Westminster Village", "the Beltway" - and get badly out of touch with the ordinary day-to-day concerns of the people. And "amateur politicians" (the kind of part-timers who have executive jobs in business, that were common in the British Parliament until a serious of scandals in the 1980s and 90s, for example) for whom politics is only a sideline, tend not to devote the necessary attention to it, unless someone makes it worth their while.

A house of professionals and a "virtual house" of true amateurs selected form the public might be a good balance.

Would this severely limit the influence of lobbyists and their power in DC?

Yes and no. They wouldn't be able to influence cases in directions that are not merited by the strength of supporting evidence (not in the new "House of Panels", which wouldn't be a single building any more anyway). But they would have a free hand to say and present anything that bolsters their case in the open and on public record.

Would this have a positive and healthy effect on our government?
Somewhat. This would bring us closer to the democracy demonstrated by ancient Athens, but a random selection does not necessarily give an accurate representation of the public will. It certainly provides a great convenience to the election process, but the unanticipated disproportion could steer the government in an unpopular direction.

Would we as a nation benefit from removing "Professional" politicians from the reigns of power and placing it in the hands of "amatuers"?
No. Politicians should have the incentive of getting re-elected. The amatures in this example go unchecked, and so they will act in any manner they choose. A "professional" can gain a reputation, wisdom that can only come from experience, and learn from his own mistakes.

Would this severely limit the influence of lobbyists and their power in DC?
No. A poor man is easier to bribe, and a random lot is sure to have many poor people.

1.) No one can know for sure. I am inclined to put my two cents in saying that it would likely blow up in our faces.

2.) There is a lot to be said for career politicians... they are not likely to make a mistake in pronouncing the name of the Mongolian ambassador's niece at a state dinner and spark some kind of dispute.

3.) Yes.