1. - TJ - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 10:42 am:

   Selecting folks at random to serve in public office?

   It’s been done before, and for a while it worked well in Athens, but long story short it’ll just become a mob and make people that annoy us drink hemlock.

   ….. wait, that actually does sound like an improvement….. until the Spartans come, of course.




2. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 10:45 am:

   TJ, the Spartans have already arrived. lol

   Back to the question, please.




3. - chiefilliniwek - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 10:46 am:

   Nebraska has a unicameral house (alas not randomly picked) and it seems to be doing a bit better than IL. No reason for there to be 2 houses in any state in the 21st century.




4. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 10:46 am:

   Stick to the question, please.




5. - WOW - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 10:52 am:

   we do it with a jury all the time. we just need to draw up a few exemptions and it really would probably work better. Really have you met some of these people under the dome?




6. - LouisXIV - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:00 am:

   Random selection would just take the people who are marginally interested in politics or not interested at all and actually put them in charge. If roughly half of all eligible voters are registered and only 25% of them turned out to vote in the last election, only 1/8 of the people randomly selected would theoretically have even a passing interest in politics or government. Do you really think that the other 7/8s would do a better job of governing than they do trying to get their apathetic #*@es to the polls once or twice a year? It’d go with public financing of elections, so that people whom might be interested in running and might actually do a good job could actually get on the ballot and get their message across, before I’d go with random selection.




7. - bcross - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:02 am:

   The thing that makes “randomly selected” attractive is that it returns to what was one of the fundamental assumptions in building a democracy — that regular people took time out from their normal occupation to SERVE the government of the people. Over the years our system has become one of professional legislators — most of whom put their own self-interest (i.e., re-election) before the good of the State, regardless of how well-intentioned they were when they were first elected.




8. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:05 am:

   WOW,
   and juries do such a great job. . .
   We would have a House full of Joe the Plummers.




9. - LouisXIV - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:10 am:

   As for the unicameral legislature, when we had cumulative voting there was sort of a reason for the two houses but once we did away with that, we really lost the reason for having two houses. We could definitely go to a unicameral legislature here. If we are going to stick with two houses, having a randomly selected House and an elected Senate is interesting. The elected Senate would be a check on idiocy that is likely to come from the House from time to time but the House would be a check on the Senate’s desire to play politics and pander to the special interests that would give money to the senators to get them elected.




10. - Captain Flume - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:13 am:

    I think that is Jason the Plummer and Joe the Plumber.




11. - Secret Square - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:16 am:

    Of late I have been thinking, it’s unfortunate that we can only vote for people with egos inflated enough to WANT offices like president, governor, etc.

    In some ways, it’s too bad we can’t “draft” suitable candidates who are not running for the office, and who consider themselves unworthy of the honor or who would approach it as a burden or cross they have to bear temporarily for the public good, not as a prize with which to enrich themselves.




12. - OneMan - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:16 am:

    Totally random, it would be interesting but not real practical.

    To some extent the house of lords in the UK was sort of like this until they changed the rules in 1999(yes I know lords are not random) but a decent number of those folks were so many generations removed from the landed gentry they were everyday folk.

    For example Christopher Guest from Spinal Tap and other movies was in the house of lords as Christopher Haden-Guest, 5th Baron Haden-Guest




13. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:18 am:

    Ok, here it is … the unicameral chamber of the Illinois legislature, selected from the public, with the members selected by random.

    Each IL Senate district has a lottery, by which, the citizen MUST have voted in 3 consecutive elections, over the last 5 years. Two citizens are then selected, by lottery, from that pool, and are considered, “Members-Elect” of the new ILGA. These 118 citizens are then given 2 year terms, and are paid $60k a year or their current yearly wage WHICHEVER IS LESSER (citizen-representative?).

    The 118 then, out of an Abe Lincoln stove-top hat, then draw one of 3 ping pong balls out of that hat; a RED one, which would mean that the citizen is part of the 7 person leadership team, a GREEN one, which would mean the citizen is NOT in a leadership position, or the ONE BLACK one (oh, the irony) would make that one “lucky” citizen “President, and designated Speaker of the Chamber”. The new President Speaker organizes the other 7 RED ball leaders to organize committees.

    The final bill that MUST be passed during their Assmebly is the new rules by which the next 118 must approve, which would be what lessons they learned to pass on to the next 118.

    You may NOT serve consecutive terms. You may only have, by random, 2 terms period. You must serve, unless, death, incarceration, or severe impalement to render the member incapacitated. You many NOT take any appointements for any governmental positions at the municipal, county, state, or federal level that would interrupt a member’s term.

    Ok, you luck 118, go get em’!




14. - Gregor - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:25 am:

    I would like random selection of the Speaker and Senate Pres from among the entire membership, no back-to-back winners allowed. You could recuse yourself if selected, but it could not go to anyone who’d had the job in the last 2 terms.

    Man, that would be fun to watch.




15. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:26 am:

    By the way, I think the senerio I set out would never work and is impractical, but fun to set some guidelines, make it a Member-Citizen, and just random …but just not possible.




16. - Bill - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:29 am:

    Most people would probably do anything to get out of legislature duty just like do jury duty. Only whackos and seniors with nothing better to do would want to serve. I’m not saying they would do any worse than our current crop of electees, however.




17. - erstwhilesteve - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:29 am:

    There is actually a Borges short story on this theme: “The Lottery at Babylon”. The best part of the fantasy is that every role in the society is rotated - including kings, professors, street sweepers and convicts…




18. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:33 am:

    There is also the Short Story called “The Lottery”, by which, at the end, you learn, the “winner” gets stoned to death by the rabble of the town … maybe a lottery WOULD work …(snark)




19. - 10th Indy - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:57 am:

    I think the winner of the electoral lottery would feel about the same as Ms. Jackson’s “winner”

    “It isn’t fair, it isn’t right,” Mrs. Hutchinson screamed, and then they were upon her.




20. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 12:00 pm:

    I believe too much in democracy to support random appointment to office. Remember that everyone of those clowns in the state Leg were put there by the voters. In many cases, the clown has been reelected a number of times to his seat.

    If the voters are responsible for the current makeup of the statehouse, what makes anyone think that removing a layer of indirection is going to improve things?




21. - shore - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 12:09 pm:

    william f. buckley said the same thing 50 years ago. though he used a phone book and i am sure people said this long before.




22. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 12:15 pm:

    “Captain Flume - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 11:13 am:

    I think that is Jason the Plummer and Joe the Plumber.”

    Too funny. I knew that, but for some reason hit “say it” with it spelled in that manner anyway. Which is why I am now qualified to serve in the House. It would be a great fit.




23. - Rob N - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 12:20 pm:

    Jury duty on steroids.

    Ergo, it stands to reason Scott Lee Cohen may be one of the first “Legislative-Invitees-at-Random” (LIARs) to be picked. ;)

    Combining the two sounds like one of those great ideas on paper but would end up being absolutely horrible in practice. Then again, compulsory service sounds a bit … compulsory, doesn’t it? So maybe it doesn’t even sound good on paper.

    One good thing to come out of it would be that citizens would hopefully get a bit of flavor of what goes into the actual job of legislating and representing (and answering to) thousands of people, most of whom disagree with each other, let alone you.




24. - Rob N - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 12:22 pm:

    bcross says, “Over the years our system has become one of professional legislators — most of whom put their own self-interest (i.e., re-election) before the good of the State, regardless of how well-intentioned they were when they were first elected. “

    Over the years?

    Take a look at how long several of the original members of Congress served in our nation’s nascent capital.

    The notion that “career politicians” are a relatively new phenomenon is a myth.




25. - Joe the Neurologist - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 12:31 pm:

    By all means, let’s assess appropriate blame on our last 20 years of governors and general assemblies for the budget mess, but let’s not kid ourselves, people; the average voter is no great lot either.

    Complain about government’s reckless spending, but remember that the average voter has a negative savings rate, and carries nearly half their annual income in credit card debt. Adjustable mortgages with a down payment of less than 10 percent for a home with an inflated price they’ll never be able to pay off? That’s the average voter for you.

    That’s not to mention how easily the average voter is swayed by rhetoric, and how willing they are to value emotion over reason. Average people distrust modern medicine and trust homeopathy; average people don’t believe in evolution by natural selection, but they do believe in alien abduction.

    And let us not forget, the decision-making ability of the average voter is exactly what left us with George Ryan, Rod Blagojevich and Scott Lee Cohen, so what about the average voter inspires enough confidence to give them direct control over the government?




26. - irish - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 12:33 pm:

    The first question that comes to mind is who does the random selection? I can see the “Committee” in charge becoming corrupt and it wouldn’t be long before we had what we have.

    The concept would be interesting and in most other situations might almost work. It is just that this state breeds corruption of power and I don’t see another method of selection of our representitives being any different.




27. - the Patriot - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 12:44 pm:

    If you are a small government physical conservative it works. The general guy off the street does not understand or care about 95% of what happens in government. No one would know what to do and gridlock sets in. The other possible outcome is One or two dominant personalities run rough shot over everyone else. Glad we don’t have that now!




28. - Anon E. Mouse - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 12:45 pm:

    I trust the average American more than the average politician.

    Would I be in favor of a change? — absolutely. I really don’t think that we could have significantly worse representation than the status quo.




29. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 12:46 pm:

    Well, first of all we have seen for hundred of years that a vast majority of our juries are filled with sincere people who take their civic responsibility seriously. Like most normal people, when confronted by a situation where one of their peers will be affected forever by their work as a juror, citizens respond.

    Secondly, we have seen a remarkable success when we draft citizens into battle. Americans have repeatedly shown how people living in freedom and liberty, take responsibilities and craft ingenious battlefield solutions to win wars over hyper-regulated enemies.

    Rich, you and I have lived in Germany enough to have observed how different they are from us the moment a system breaks down. Germans freeze and wait for the official experts, and Americans quickly solve problems ad hoc, damn the experts.

    Liberty and freedom works. We are proof. You want to see the United Nations work? Look at how the US with it’s hundreds of millions from around the world - make a united nation. We don’t need to be led by bureaucrats - we’ve done it, and are still doing it.

    So citizens can lead. In war and in peace. If we established a jury-draft-legislative process, I am confident that each of us, regardless of our roots, language or education, would take responsibility and handle duties as admirably as our current legislature.

    If Illinoisans knew that they could be selected to perform these duties, more of them would feel a duty to stay informed and to share their personal opinions, regarding issues. They would more fully realize the impact governmental decisions have on them. They would better understand the difference between “rights” and “wishes” within a society. They would be forced to recognize the similarities they share with groups they hadn’t previously felt they had any similarities.

    We are not stupid. We are the highest educated generation in history, (although definately not the most literate or wisest). If we in 2010 cannot find it remotely possible to imagine a citizen government in a positive manner, then perhaps the greatest experiment in human governance since the Ancient Greeks, was a 300 year long waste of time and we should just install and begin worshipping our bureaucrat-expert-royalties right now.




30. - old media reader - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 12:46 pm:

    If you ever read the comment sections in media sites that don’t have someone like Rich in charge, it might just make us thankful for our elected legislators.
    However I always loved the movie, “King of Hearts”, where the residents of the insane asylum resume their roles in the city. The main character chooses to join them in the end.




31. - Cook County Commoner - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 12:51 pm:

    We’d be right back where we are now in six months, after the newbies are wined and dined and perked and flown and receieve their campaign contributions. The legilature would stratify in power like a pyramid, like it is now, with the smartest and most venal running the show with a firm eye on their self-interest.




32. - Ghost of John Brown - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 1:03 pm:

    I was an elected official a number of years ago, and I often told people that everyone should be in government at somepoint to see how things really work. The “random” idea might reflect the original idea of “citizen legislators” a little more than we have today.

    (Sorry, no creativity today - couldn’t think of any snark)




33. - lake county democrat - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 1:10 pm:

    It depends on whether the common folk get to run for reelection. If so, they’ll become Madigan/Cross or whoever corporate/union-anointed powerbroker toadies just like those in office now. Otherwise they might just do some good.




34. - Justice - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 1:10 pm:

    Random selection is a great idea. Would need to restrict lobbyists. Actually, wouldn’t hurt to do that now.




35. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 1:16 pm:

    But Madigan would still be in charge, right?




36. - Irish1 - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 1:16 pm:

    How about a tax deduction for voting? Nothing huge, but worthwhile. Just a thought.




37. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 1:18 pm:

    ===How about a tax deduction for voting? ===

    OK, I know this is all fantasy anyway, but did you not notice this little budget problem of ours?




38. - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 1:30 pm:

    But, it’s these same people we are going to randomly select who keep electing the people they are going to replace. And it’s these same people who keep falling for all the meaningless negative advertising even when they say they hate all the negative advertising in campaigns. And it’s all these same people who fall for the “I want gov’t to do everything for me, but don’t raise my taxes”. Friends, it’s all these people who have been the co-conspirators w/ the politicians to put us where we are now; I don’t quite see them leading us out of the desert.




39. - Bongo Furry - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 1:37 pm:

    We can use the lottery idea, but sell the tickets to pay off the projected cuts in education spending…..
    Oh Wait; we already heard that one before.




40. - Sewanee - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 1:44 pm:

    ===How about a tax deduction for voting?===

    Rich is right! We could never afford to allow three or four deductions for every Chicago voter!




41. - What planet is he from again? - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 1:54 pm:

    Two things: “A room full of monkeys typing at typewriters…” (which unfortunately the Internet has proven untrue.) But maybe if you randomly selected thousands of people and set them each to a typewriter and told them to type random characters, one or two decent ideas my come out?

    But seriously, there are studies that show “wisdom of the masses” (no I can’t cite one right now of course, but I’ve read it in a paper publication, therefore it must be true.) Get enough people together and they “tend to” make the right choices. Like planning vacations to Area 51.




42. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 2:55 pm:

    I’m not a great believer in the idea that the other guy is so much better or virtuous.

    I think most folks, especially on the state level, are representative of their constituencies in one way or another.




43. - sal-says - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 3:48 pm:

    As I’ve posted here before; I’d like another ballot choice for each office: “None of the Above - Start Over”.

    One way to get a ‘more’ random set of elected officials is to vote: “Anybody But An Incumbent”.




44. - Park - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 5:24 pm:

    The reference to Buckley is apt… I think the quote was that he’d rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. Good stuff.

    BUT, most people wouldn’t do well in office. Most of us are too ’single issue’ to care about other important things. The problem is the lack of term limits. There are plenty of people qualified and interested in good public service who will never be elected because of the power of incumbency. We are governed by a group of cowards who are afraid to challenge leadership for fear of losing an election. Unless the world changes between now and November, MJM will still rule the state, no matter who is governor. Doesn’t mean it can’t be changed, just means it probably won’t. We had a great chance when the Con-Con was up, but didn’t seize it.




45. - Quizzical - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 5:36 pm:

    I think it would fail, in a grinding, painful way. It would be very hard to imagine getting 118 random citizens up to speed on what Medicaid is, or how schools are funded, or how even procedural matters like amending bills.

    I reject the intellectually lazy proposition that there’s some problem with ‘all politicians’. I’d have to agree with wordslinger. The reason we have put off solving long term problems is that people voted for people who put off long term problems. Voting to raise taxes is near political suicide, so is cutting popular programs like road construction or the U of I. The average voter wanted someone just like him, so the State now has all of the financial problems that Joe the Neurologist describes in the average voter.




46. - really? - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 6:40 pm:

    @quizzical=your first sentence almost says that elected officical understand Mediciad, school fuunding and procedural matters better than the average citizen.
    lol
    Anyhow, if random selection would happen, what would happen next?how would these randomly selected ones organize? is it the selection process or human nature that results in inefffective government?




47. Pingback The Capitol Fax Blog » Question of the day | 博客营销_博客专家_玩转博客 - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 7:45 pm:

    […] Continue reading here: The Capitol Fax Blog » Question of the day […]




48. - Quizzical - Tuesday, Mar 16, 10 @ 9:13 pm:

    really? — I’m not saying they’re all great statesmen, just that there’s some institutional knowledge among the members — and the limits of that knowledge would be much smaller with random people.




49. - Das Man - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 6:01 am:

    How about keeping the electoral process the same, but interjecting some chance in the way they vote on the floor? We have these nice new Lincoln pennies from the mint, instead of voting bills along party lines, each Representative could simply flip his or her penny. Heads for the yea, Tails for the nay. It would be bipartisan, and all ties would go to Speaker Madigan.




50. - Whizbang - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 6:20 am:

    I don’t know if anybody has mentioned it yet. I did not see it. BUT….Kind of brings back memories of the short story by Shirley Jackson “The Lottery”

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.