What if congressional and senate seats were chosen at random from the general public?

Question

instead of letting wealthy candidates buy their way in with expensive campaigning? There could be a selection process much like choosing a jury to weed out the unfit.

Answer 1

When 57% of Americans cannot name a SINGLE supreme court justice I think we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think most people just don't care enough. And what kind of vetting process would you use? That would, in effect, be placing the power to pick our representatives in the hands of a very few. Is our system mangled? Yes. But do I think that the theory of the system is fundamentally flawed? No I do not. I think term limits are the best solution, coupled with CONSTITUTIONAL finance reform. I think if we just threw people at random in there it would be like throwing people at random into a chemistry lab and expecting them to develop alternative energy.

Answer 2

Are you trying to instill some kind of actual representative form of government here? Personally, I think its a great idea. It would shut down much of the corruption that goes on between lobbyist and politicians who really couldn't care less about the people they are SUPPOSED to be representing. And, at least if it didn't shut down the bribes and things of that nature, more people would be getting rich, because we would have different people in there every few years. Lets use Social Security numbers and do random drawings. If the people are found incompetent as in jury selection, they go home and there is no harm done. I like it and I think we should move to have it instituted, even though it would definitely take an ammendment to the Constitution, but I believe it has been ammended in the past, so therefore it could probably happen again. I'm on the bandwagon though and anything I can do to help, I'd be more than willing. Thanks and have a nice day.

Answer 3

1. Congress is the House and Senate, so congressional and senate seats is nonsensical.

2. Your example doesn't make much sense.

a. Jurors are the people's direct representative in a court of law, with the purpose of judging evidence. They do not legislate nor debate on legislation.

b. Under Voire Dire, the jury would be removed by the attorneys with presiding judge's acceptance when necessary, so it's not random.

3. If people want direct voting and not to have to accept the lesser of two or more evils, why would they accept randomly chosen members of Congress instead?

Answer 4

It's an excellent suggestion, provided they can only serve for one term. The longer one remains in Washington, the more corrupt one becomes.

Another possibility would be to install secure voting on everyone's computer. A TV channel would sponsor informational sessions and debate on each ballot issue, and the American people would have a week or so to vote on it. We could pay for the whole thing with the money we save on Congressmen's salaries, and of course, the savings from all the pork-barrel spending it would eliminate.

Answer 5

Well, the republic got along just fine with governors picking senators for the first decades of its existence. I wouldn't be against a return to this...it would most likely cause people to take more of an interest in state politics.

Answer 6

or we could finally pass campaign finance reform and limit the amount spent as well as giving each candidate proper airtime