AMERICAN REBIRTH PAPER No. 4
This series of papers proposes solutions to American governmental problems that could be addressed by a Constitutional Convention. Please refer to American Rebirth Paper No. 0 to understand additional context of this paper and subsequent papers. American Rebirth Paper No. 1 addressed problems with and proposed solutions to Federal elections, American Rebirth Paper No. 2 addressed problems with and proposed solutions to State elections, and American Rebirth Paper No. 3 addressed problems with and solutions to County elections. This Paper summarizes the effect of the proposed modifications described for Federal, State, and County elections and addresses a fundamental question – if representatives are selected by lottery, will they be effective legislators?
Two fundamental problems identified for all elections include the following:
Two dominant political parties have emerged in American politics. Because it is often easier and more effective to demonize your opponent to gain and retain political power, political campaigns tend to steer away from honest policy debates. In particular, the Democrats, who know that they don’t have facts or history on their side to support their policy goals, resort to lying, name-calling and labeling, character assassination, and propaganda to demonize Republicans.
Politics is driven by money, generally to the benefit of large corporations and well-funded special interests, with the general public mostly ignored. Incumbency is rampant resulting in a feedback loop – money flows to the favored incumbents, they do the bidding of the well-heeled donors, and money flows once again to the incumbent. Going against this symbiotic relationship results in negative money flow for the candidate – the more you fight the system, the more money will be used against you.
In addition to the problems above, other problems at the State and County level include the following:
Politics in States and Counties with large urban populations relative to the overall population tend to be driven by the urban population.
Other than Governor and County Executive, elected positions in the State and County receive little attention during the election. Voters often make their selections for these positions based on very little information about the candidate, with many resorting to simply voting for Democrat or Republican based on their usual affiliation. This problem tends to amplify the effect of large donations from individuals such as George Soros because it is difficult for candidates to raise donations for these lesser State and County positions.
The proposed changes described in American Rebirth Papers No. 1, 2, and 3 would address these problems as follows:
Political parties are essentially eliminated. Other than President, Governor, and County Executive, all other government positions are either filled by lottery or appointment. Elections for President, Governor, and County Executive are held in a manner that prohibits identifying a political party on the election ballot and results in the top two candidates being selected for a final runoff election through a primary process.
An electoral college approach, similar to the process used for President, is used for Governors and County Executives. This approach balances urban interests versus rural interests, generally resulting in a lessening in the power of large urban areas to control State and County politics.
Because government positions other than President, Governors, and County Executives are filled by lottery or appointment, the power of political donations is greatly diminished. In particular, Congressmen, Senators, and County Council members will not require any political donations at all, as these positions are selected by lottery. This approach will eliminate any feelings of quid-pro-quo from the individuals in these positions.
Government positions at the State and County level that are appointed by the Governor or County Executive are reviewed and approved by the State Senate or County Council. This approach provides a check against a Governor or County Executive appointing a “radical” person for a position, but also allows the Governor and County Executive to appoint individuals that he believes are fully qualified for the position.
Federal Senators are selected by the State legislators, one by the House and one by the Senate. This approach allows individuals that are not political in nature to be selected. In general, the Houses would tend to select individuals that are more concerned about urban issues while the Senate would tend to select individuals that are more concerned with rural issues.
This proposed approach to governmental elections, while still maintaining the current positions held at all levels of government, is a radical departure from any current method used to select government officials. It certainly would reduce, if not eliminate the power of political parties. My hope is that political parties would be eliminated. However, I do believe that political parties would attempt to maintain some power if the proposed approach was adopted. For example, the Democrat Party could convince a large number of citizens in a Congressional District to state their loyalty to the Party and enter the lottery to select a Representative. Although this counter-tactic could result in a number of Representatives identifying as Democrats, the donor money and politician synergy, where donors drive political decisions, would still be broken because the Representatives would have no need for the donor’s funding. Also, other groups, such as the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Rotary Club, teachers from a local high school, members of the NRA, members or Trout Unlimited, and many other organizations, could do the same thing, where the entire group becomes qualified and enters the lottery. It would be very desirable to have a large number of citizens entering the lottery, as this would mean that citizen involvement in governing has been heightened and more citizens would have a knowledgeable understanding of how our government works (as evidenced by passing the qualification test).
The President, Governors, and County Executives may also state loyalty to a Political Party, and the Party may assist with funding to the campaigns. However, candidates for these positions will not be identified by party on the election ballot or in any mailings or commercials (it is proposed that candidates may not, by law, state party affiliation in any campaign commercials or mailings). Also, given the weakening of the political parties in general, the advantage of being associated with a particular political party is greatly diminished. In fact, it may be detrimental for a candidate to state a party affiliation, as many voters may believe that association with a party is a negative.
There is no doubt that the political parties would not give up their power easily. Given the power they now wield, making the proposed changes will be a colossal task. However, despite the apparent long road to victory, is it not similar to the colossal task that the Patriots faced in winning the Revolutionary War and establishing a new nation? We must envision a better form of government and then never give up until we have succeeded in freeing ourselves from the shackles of political parties that care more about maintaining their power than doing what is best for the citizenry. It can be done; all we need is to believe it can be done and to keep trying.
In the proposed system, some governmental positions are elected, many are selected by other governmental positions, and some are selected by lottery. This latter selection process, I believe, has never been used in a major governmental system. The obvious question one may have regarding use of a lottery is whether the selected people will be able to fulfill their roles as well as, if not better than Representatives, Senators, and County Council members currently chosen by election. It is my belief that, with our current two-party system, most of these members do not represent their districts; instead, they represent their party. As a result, all they need to do is vote in a manner that is dictated by their party. Many will vote this way even if it is contrary to what they really believe. It is rare to have a party member take a stand against his own party, and when he does, the party and media will make sure to let the errant party member know that his actions are not appreciated and could result in withholding of campaign financing.
I submit as evidence of the power of Party over representing a district, the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). This major legislation was signed into law March 23, 2010. The bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 60 for and 30 against, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against on December 24, 2009. A special election was held on January 19, 2010 to replace the recently deceased Senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy (Democrat). Remarkably, Scott Brown, a Republican, was elected. His victory was significant because it reduced the number of Senate Democrats to 59, one less than needed for cloture to end a filibuster. It also had psychological effects: the symbolic importance of losing Kennedy's traditionally Democratic Massachusetts seat made many Congressional Democrats concerned about the political cost of the bill.
The Democrats had hoped that the House (also controlled by the Democrats) could conference with the Senate and work through any differences to put forward a final, reconciled bill that both House and Senate Democrats could agree to. Senator Brown’s election derailed this plan. As passed in the Senate, not enough House Democrats supported the bill as is. Thus, the Democrats needed to figure out a way to make changes to the Senate bill while recognizing that Republicans could filibuster any new bill. The Democrats used a legislative process called reconciliation to work through differences. Reconciliation can be passed with a simple majority (filibusters are not allowed by Senate rules for reconciliation bills) provided that all the changes involve only budgetary items. Since most of the House Democrats objections involved budgetary items, reconciliation could be used to pass changes. After reaching agreement with the Senate that reconciliation would be used to pass an amendment to the original Senate bill, the House then passed the Senate bill by a 219 to 212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it. It passed the reconciliation bill, by 220–211, the same day (with the Senate passing this bill via reconciliation with a vote of 56 to 43 a few days later). Not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted for either the original bill or the reconciliation bill.
I believe that most of the Senators and Congressman that voted for Obamacare had not completely read the two bills, and if they had read the two bills, most would have a difficult time understanding the nuances of the bills. A short section of the bill is as follows (not presented for context, but merely to provide an example of the tortured nature of the bill’s text):
‘‘SEC. 2707 [42 U.S.C. 300gg–6]. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE. ‘‘(a) COVERAGE FOR ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS PACKAGE.—A health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual or small group market shall ensure that such coverage includes the essential health benefits package required under section 1302(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. ‘‘(b) COST-SHARING UNDER GROUP HEALTH PLANS.—A group health plan shall ensure that any annual cost-sharing imposed under the plan does not exceed the limitations provided for under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1302(c). ‘‘(c) CHILD-ONLY PLANS.—If a health insurance issuer offers health insurance coverage in any level of coverage specified under section 1302(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the issuer shall also offer such coverage in that level as a plan in which the only enrollees are individuals who, as of the beginning of a plan year, have not attained the age of 21.”
The two bills taken together have a total of 955 pages. Regarding how these bills were written, the truth is that very few Senators or Congressman wrote the actual text; most of the text was written by legislative staff members working closely with lobbyists representing insurance, health care, and pharmaceutical companies. A few key features of the bills that greatly benefited the health insurance companies are as follows:
1. Individuals older than 21 years of age must purchase health insurance or pay a fine. In a constitutional challenge to the bills, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, redefined a “fine” as stated in the bill’s text to really mean a “tax”, which was certainly a controversial decision (judicial activism will be covered in another American Rebirth Paper).
2. Low-income individuals required to purchase Obamacare insurance received subsidies from the Federal Government, in many cases reducing the individual’s contribution towards the insurance premiums to a few dollars per month.
3. Insurance plans covered by Obamacare must provide coverage as dictated by the Obamacare regulations. This requirement essentially eliminated any competition where insurance companies could provide alternative coverage.
These three features taken together benefited insurance companies by requiring individuals to purchase insurance (imagine if the government required you to purchase a television even if you didn’t want one), pumping a huge amount of money into the system via subsidies, and reducing competition.
Furthermore, Obamacare created a colossal regulatory bureaucracy. The word “regulation” or “regulations” appears about 250 times in the 955 pages of text. Navigating the regulations requires a lot of effort by the insurance and health care companies. These regulations increase the cost of insurance because the companies must hire an army of individuals to assure the company follows the regulations. In addition, the heavy regulatory burden tends to favor large companies that can leverage their regulatory staff. Thus, smaller companies, which often create competition, are less likely to enter the Obamacare market.
Now, imagine if instead of Democrats and Republicans, we had had individuals selected by lottery (Congressman) and appointed by State Legislatures (Senators). None of these individuals would be facing reelection, eliminating the potential for their vote to be swayed by political donations, either from past elections or future election runs. Furthermore, there would be no Party leaders twisting their arms to assure they vote along party lines. The actual writing of the bill would likely still be up to legislative staffers, but the Congressman and Senators would be primarily concerned with representing their constituents, since there is no party hierarchy and there is no influence (i.e. political donations) from lobbyists.
Now, what would you rather have as a representative? Someone that makes decisions because he’s a Democrat or Republican or someone that that will work to understand the proposed legislation and make an informed decision? I submit that a person who can qualify for the lottery (see American Rebirth Paper No. 1) will have the necessary intelligence and understanding of government to make a worthy decision as well as provide input regarding the key features of a bill.
One additional wrinkle to this discussion will be covered in another American Rebirth Paper. Namely, I will propose that proposed legislation shall be open to a public comment period with written comments submitted to Congress and verbal testimony given to a joint session of Congress. This process would allow Congress to hear from both proponents and opponents to proposed legislation.