Could a legislature seated by jury work much better than our present arrangement where anyone who can raise money from private interests is asked to serve for the public interest? George Bernard Shaw said democracy is a system that guarantees we will be governed no better than what we deserve.
The recent sleaze in UK politics that has not spared even a member of its noble families [the US abolished noble titles but not ruling families]. It has made for fast and furious debates within the palace of Westminster [aka, Parliament], the streets, and the pages of the UK Guardian. Depending on where you rank nobility, the falling Lord Hailsham either tops of trails a growing list of casualties for pilfering the public money, which is in short supply due to our irrational economic system.
You won't find the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, or OC Register having such a debate, laying so many sacred institutions on the table.
Even the British monarchy is suggested for the chopping block in the UK, its oldest institution and still the source of power in the UK system. Another commentator called the Queen a "lame duck" for having but not being able to use her ancient powers to simply fire the prime minister, close Parliament [it is, after all, a royal palace], and call a new election.
Contrast the British outrage to what resulted after the 2000 fracas when Al Gore's plurality of votes was contradicted by the Constitutional Electoral College appointment of George W Bush? Our press lords are deafeningly silent. In the early 1960's, when the Queen hand-picked the Earl of Home to be prime minister over a more popular choice, the Conservative Party instituted elections of their party leaders to prevent such a power from being exercised.
The US slowness to reform is not due to the public but rather our rulers, who unfortunately don't have their old titles so can't be escorted to the guillotine ... figuratively speaking of course. They simply don't want to give up power and wo't let their organs in the pressrooms let you know they weild power.
In California, in the wake of last Tuesday's sound failure of Sacramento's pedestrian measures to lessen our growing debt and ineptitude, and our High Court playing with LGBT rights as if they were capricious children and we just one of too many toys.
We might begin with Legislature Reform. Presently, we might as well have a House of Lords - to continue too far the British comparison. Republican and Democrat may not be able to pass a Budget; they are very effective in keeping their favorites in power, even while they rotate every two terms, or speakership from north to south and back again. They are mostly unremarkable.
Why not implement a Jury Legislature? A jury is a sacred and evolved piece of our court system, giving adults access to shaping court rulings and the accused a guarantee that the public will be included in the adminstrration of justice. If its good enough for the courts and the accused, why not the community as a whole?
A jury of legislators could be picked at random to sit for two-year terms not only in Sacramento but also locally as well.
3 comments:
I’d like to suggest a modification of this proposal. It can be a great way to set up a process for looking at problems like unfair election rules, campaign finance, gerrymandering and many others, and proposing solutions.
This process already has a name — a Citizens Assembly. People are selected at random from voter registration and other lists. Those selected can opt out for any reason — lack of time, lack of interest, whatever. But nobody can opt in. The Assembly meets mostly on weekends and members get a nominal stipend plus travel expenses. The Assembly also gets paid staff and consultants (watch out for these — they can seriously bias the Assembly’s thinking!). It holds hearings at various locations where anyone can testify, and holds other hearings to listen to invited experts on constitutional law, voting or whatever the issue is.
Whatever solution the Citizens Assembly comes up with is then automatically put to a vote of the people, and adopted only if it wins majority support.
On the other hand, choosing regular legislative bodies this way has some serious problems. Legislators who are not — even in principle — accountable to the voters might feel that they can pass any old laws they please. Many laws would go into effect, and the voters could hold referenda only on a few of them. And, with 100% turnover at the end of each session there would be no continuity — this would be even worse than term limits. We need to be able to choose those who represent us in the legislature. (In fact, that’s what’s wrong now — our choices are so constrained by money and mass propaganda.)
My guess is that Lowell is reacting to the kinds of problems created by our existing winner-take-all election rules. Proportional representation is a much better way to attack those problems.
By the way, in 2005 a Citizens Assembly in British Columbia, Canada, overwhelmingly proposed a proportional voting system for that province.
I really like this proposal, even though the problems in the "100% turn over" Bob mentions does not seem to happen with the judicial jury system - I guess because there is an UNELECTED judge to guide and modify. I will look up the CITIZENS ASSEMBLY in BC for a future article. Thanks, Bob!!!
Turnover is not the same problem with trial juries because of the the nature of the decision each one makes. When the system works (which is not always), the judge provides the kind of continuity that is needed by interpreting the law. Legislatures don't decide cases based on a set of facts and a set of laws. They make those laws. For this reason, legislatures have to be responsible to those who selected them.
A Citizens Assembly, or perhaps a constitutional convention, becomes appropriate when the rules that legislators are supposed to follow -- especially the rules under which they are elected -- are not working. When this happens, often the legislators themselves are the last people you want to rely on to fix the problem.
Post a Comment