What is Democracy+?
“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.” - Thomas Jefferson
You receive a jury summons. You show up, hear testimony, and then—with your peers—deliberate to reach an answer. We are all familiar with this process. And I think most are generally satisfied with relying on juries in the judicial branch. We trust their judgment, that they will reach a fair and accurate outcome. Why not apply that to the legislative branch as well?
Democracy+ (as I like to call it) is the random selection of legislators, a jury system for Congress. Instead of voting on legislators through elections, each of us is a potential candidate that can be drawn by lottery into office. If selected, you would enact legislation alongside a thousand or so other citizens—debating policy, hearing evidence from experts, and voting on bills.
As a historic practice enjoying a modern revival, this system has gone by many names over the millenia: sortition, lottery elections, citizen juries, etc. For two centuries, ancient Athens used lotteries to assign a host of public offices, like the law-making body. The Florentine Republic in the early Renaissance did as well. And today, countries around the globe use (with great success) randomly selected bodies to discuss and even decide policy, including constitutional reform.
By ending elections, Democracy+ is the next evolution of our governing structure. It eliminates the opportunity for money to influence policy outcomes. It creates a truly representative body that will cooperate to reach compromises, a marked divide from the combative atmosphere innate to two competing political parties. It puts in power people without ulterior motives, who can vote their conscience without the need to appease special interest groups or party leaders.
“But what about stupid people?” Many, when hearing about Democracy+, are appalled that Joe Six-Pack down the street could be calling the shots. But those who lack faith in humanity should not fear. To begin with, stupid people won’t determine policy—the median person will. Since it takes a majority to pass a bill, all policy must be supported by those with at least average intelligence.
But more importantly, shouldn’t “stupid” people have a say too? In fact, including an array of people in the deliberative process would actually improve legislative outcomes. One of the strongest upsides to Democracy+ is cognitive diversity. Studies show that the best decision-making happens when it includes people who think differently, with different perspectives and different experiences. We certainly lack that from elections. What better way to ensure cognitive diversity than through a random selection from the population at large?
Besides, if we don’t trust ordinary people to enact policy, why would we trust them to vote? Deciding whether to support a particular policy is far less complicated than deciding whom to vote for. Choosing a candidate is a multidimensional decision that requires aggregating predictions on how each person will vote on your weighted policy preferences, and factoring in non-policy considerations like character. And because our vote doesn’t matter, we have little incentive to research the policies and candidates.
Under Democracy+, however, randomly selected legislators will be given the time and resources needed to evaluate each policy.
At bottom, this “Joe Six-Pack” response reflects a distrust of ordinary people that the Founders of our country shared. After all, the Founders designed a government that intentionally buffered the population from exerting much influence. The select few who could vote (white, land-owning men) would appoint more “qualified,” “deserving” people to decide policy. And even then, the President and Senate were only indirectly elected. We couldn’t even trust those select few to vote.
We quickly abandoned that view. From Jefferson to Jackson, from the enfranchisement of non-property owners, minorities, and women, to the direct election of Senators and direct primaries, our country steadily marched toward giving the people more control. But these measures were carrying water in a sieve. There is only so much popular sovereignty you can achieve in a system specifically designed to thwart it. We should abandon the electoral structure, just like we’ve long abandoned the view that structure was built on.
And it’s not like the current regime actually puts those “qualified,” “deserving” people in office. Elections are a glorified beauty pageant. What makes for a successful candidate does not translate into a successful legislator; charisma isn’t competence. It’s akin to requiring medical students to win a cooking competition before receiving a license to practice medicine. The meritocracy elections promote is a mirage.
Even assuming, as the Founders believed, that the government needs to save the people from themselves—a sad, paternalistic view that elected legislators somehow know what we need better than we do—elections simply create a fox guarding the henhouse. Politicians are no saviors. They exploit us for their own greed and ambition. They extract resources from us to buy favors from special interest groups and businesses. They gobble up power they never relinquish. Those are the guardians of the public?
I’ll take my chance on Joe Six-Pack.
What is Democracy+?
I think my primary objection to a congress that resembles a jury is that we'd need to figure out how to prevent a tragedy of the commons. The primary way that new legislation is effectively debated is by special interest groups that provide a subjective, but usually detailed analysis on legislation. For example, if you want to pass new emissions legislations, you solicit opinions from the auto making industry, manufactures, and environmentalists. They all put together their best arguments so that you can understand the effect the proposed legislation may have on each interest group.
Then, prior to making a decision, you also weigh how much the legislation will cost. Is there enough budget? If not, is it worth increasing taxes to support it?
So with these moving pieces, how then do you prevent every jury from voting to decrease taxes or increase social security benefits for example? Wouldn't every jury decrease taxes and increase government benefits?
In my studies of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, William Patterson, etc. they certainly feared a pure democratic system because they were concerned with "mob rule" a phrase which meant government that is persuaded by public opinion and emotion.
I think I'd definitely like to chat through how a system like Democracy+ would limit the power of the media and public opinion. For example, what would have happened if in the wake of the George Floyd death the congress passed legislation to encourage the defunding of the police force. That goes great until organized crime increases and public safety diminishes. Suddenly there's a 2 mass shootings in Los Angeles County within just a few days and now congress if refunding police departments and adding metal detectors to every school. These are extreme examples, but you get the gist of the concern.
I hate that politicians today seem to be untrustworthy. Even very good people who I personally have known who have run and been elected to government deal with some terrible side effects of elections. Every mistake you've every made is researched, analyzed, and published. Your family is followed and photographed. The media wants copies of your taxes. Did you pay an illegal immigrant who mowed your lawn? Do you drive an electric car? Do you use reusable grocery bags? Do you take your hat off during the pledge of allegiance?
I think randomly selected legislators like a jury is an intriguing way to handle some of the terrible side effects of elections.
There's definitely something there, but I think you'd also have to set it up in the right context. Even juries are given rules and there is a judge to enforce them. If you're familiar with jury selection, you probably understand these rules better than I do. And I think there'd be even more incentive to "stack the jury" when the legislature is addressing controversial policies. So I'd love to hear more about how you handle the shortcomings of juries at a massive scale like the national legislature where they are voting on policies the affect trillion dollar industries with lots of resources to "influence" votes.
Hi Nathan,
I just linked to your SLT article from Equality-by-Lot. Please drop by and join the conversation.
https://equalitybylot.com/2022/08/13/nathan-jack-lets-end-elections