“This I beheld or dreamed it in a dream” from a poem by Edward Sill
Cast: GW: George Washington, JM: James Madison, SE: a Systems Engineer
The time is the peak of bluebonnet season, just when indian paintbrushes are beginning to bloom, and scissor-tailed flycatchers are engaged in fluttering, chattering courtships. The setting is a large conference room. Seated in the room are James Madison (JM) and an old, weary systems engineer (SE). The door opens and George Washington (GW) enters the room. He takes his seat at the head of the table. He nods, and the others nod in return. They wait for him to speak.
GW: Good morning, gentlemen. Are we ready to begin our task of updating the Constitution?
JM and SE nod in the affirmative.
GW: SE, I have read your report and I suggest that we take your recommendations one at a time. Do you agree, JM?
JM: Yes, I do. I think we should just start at the top of the list with the recommendation for changing the way we choose our representatives.
GW: Please proceed, SE.
SE: Before I begin, I must say that I do not wish to offend. My proposals are intended to solve problems. Now, the problem is that the caliber, the quality, of our elected representatives varies from mediocre to poor, and the record of government actions proves it. In Federalist 10, JM clearly states that the quality of our government depends on the quality of our representatives. But the current Constitution contains no mechanism for attracting and choosing high quality representatives. (SE pauses. GW and JM nod in the affirmative).
SE: Just as you and the other Framers did, I looked about for models that would improve the quality of our representatives. I was struck by one method in particular. It was used in ancient Athens, it was in use when you wrote the Constitution, and it is still in use in 21st century America. It is part of the Jury System.
JM: Need I remind you, SE, that in Federalist 55, I wrote: “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”
SE: I remember. I am glad to know that you wrote Federalist 55. There is a minor scholarly debate about the author of certain of the Federalist essays, and number 55 is one of them. And I certainly remember your famous statement about Socrates and “a mob.” In fact I remember that there are several remarks found in the Federalist essays that disparage the ancient Greek governments. But, I have to say, with respect, that you were mistaken. Athenian democracy has much to recommend it.
GW: Please proceed.
SE: Yes, sir. In general, our chosen representatives have a problem. They must, as JM put it in Federalist 10, balance competing interests. They must be true statesmen, who are wise, who can together seek and find the true best interests of the nation, who are patriotic and just, and who will rise above temptation. That is a lot to ask of ordinary human beings. But the Athenian system took a different approach. They didn’t choose their representatives. Each citizen was his own representative. Each citizen was expected to represent himself. There was no need to delegate great power to a group of representatives for long periods. Our Constitution has no process for finding wise, honest, just, and patriotic representatives who will resist temptation. And neither did Athenian democracy. But the Greeks, at least, left power in the hands of the citizenry; our system takes it away from the People and gives it to a few representatives. This is a dangerous system, to say the least.
JM: I readily concede that the representatives chosen under the constitutional system have not covered themselves with glory. So, get to the point. What is the solution? How do we improve the quality of our representatives?
SE: We adapt the method used by the Jury System to choose jurors.
GW: How so?
SE: I am speaking of the method we use today to choose jurors. This method relies on random selection. Citizens who satisfy certain minimum requirements are chosen by lot. In effect, names are drawn out of a hat.
JM: So you would put the names of qualified citizens for each district into a hat and draw out one name to send to the House of Representatives?
SE: Essentially, yes. But I would no longer have congressional districts. The name of each qualified citizen in the nation would be put into a hat and then several names would be drawn, and those citizens would be our representatives.
JM: So how many citizens would make up the House and the Senate? What about small states with a small population?
SE: I think that GW set the proper number at the end of the Constitutional Convention. He said that there should be one representative for each thirty thousand citizens. Today, with our population of about three hundred million, we would choose ten thousand representatives for the legislature. But we would no longer need the Senate. The Senate is where good ideas go to die.
JM: What about small states with a small population?
SE: A citizen is a citizen. Under my proposal, the legislature will represent citizens in the proportion that they are found in the entire population. So if a small state had only one percent of the population then they would be expected to have one percent of the representatives. But, please remember, this new system relies on random selection. So any state could have a greater, or a lesser, representation than its overall percentage of the population.
GW: Well, I can certainly see one great advantage of the new approach. Political parties would no longer exist. That would be a great improvement. On that basis alone, adopting the new system would be very desirable.
SE: I hoped you would see it that way. But, let me add, political parties could still exist to propose ideas for new legislation or to replace old legislation. They just could not choose their own representatives and then make promises that they do not intend to keep in order to win elections and use the power they gain to pursue their own personal interests. So, the people who depend on political parties to tell them what to think, would still have that option.
JM: Oh, come now, you knew GW would agree with the idea of random selection. He never did like parties. He devoted a large part of his Farewell Address to warning future generations about the poisons injected by parties into our political process. (JM turns toward GW and puts up his hand.) Wait, before you speak. I agree with you. You were right. Political parties are more likely than not to become factions and when they gain power they sacrifice the common good. It is a vicious cycle that has become the norm. No matter which party is in power we have bad government.
GW: Sad, but true. Political parties are an abomination. I agree with SE’s grandmother, who said that political parties are not worth the powder it would take to blow them to bits. My Farewell Address did not do much good. It either is ignored or it is twisted. In some cases I have actually been described as misunderstanding political parties. What nonsense. But Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address has been ignored as well. No politician has taken up his warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. They may talk about it if it will get them votes, but they never do anything about it.
JM: Back to work. So, SE, you propose to change the way we elect our representatives. And you propose to change the way we choose the members of the Executive and Judicial branches, right?
SE: Right. The Executive Branch will consist of 2,000 citizens chosen by random selection. The Supreme Court will consist of 9,000 citizens also chosen by random selection. The Executive Branch will be divided into four classes of 500 citizens each. They will serve a term of four years and one class of 500 will be replaced each year. The Supreme Court Justices will serve for only one case. So 9,000 Justices will be chosen each time we need to hear a case. Likewise, I propose to choose ten thousand representatives for the Legislature and they will serve for the time required to process one legislative act. This means that we could have several legislatures in action at any given time—each one will be processing one, and only one, piece of legislation.
JM: So this is a further adaptation of the Jury System, right? Jurors serve for the time required to process one trial. New jurors are chosen for each new trial, and therefore new Supreme Court Justices will be chosen for each new case. And a new set of representatives will be chosen for each new bill. If we are processing more than one bill at a given time we could have several thousand citizens working at the same time.
SE: Yes. If we process 300 bills in a given year, then 3,000,000 citizens will be randomly selected to serve as legislators. At the end of their term, they will return to their private lives with the thanks of the nation.
JM: When I first read about the size of your proposed legislature, I wondered where they would be able to meet. Then I realized that they would never leave their hometowns. They would continue to deal directly with the people they represent. With 21st century communications there is no need for the representatives ever to meet in person. And this makes it less likely for factions to form—and those that do form would be weaker than has been the case. The members of the new legislature will never meet in person, will not know each other, and will not be easily accessible to those who want to influence them.
SE: I hoped you would see it that way.
GW: SE, I like what we have covered so far. But I would like to hear more about the size of the proposed new government. It will be larger in the number of people involved. You clearly intend to include many more, millions more, people in running our government than the current system requires. And, from another point of view, if you are truly going to have a faction-free democracy, then you will need to control the effects of faction in all our institutions, not just the national government. Tell me a little about these two considerations.
SE: I hope you will forgive me if this sounds a little corny, but the idea is that there is strength in numbers, and there is great strength in great numbers. Many hands, many hearts, and many brains can do many mighty things. You, and the rest of your generation, the Founding Generation, joined your hands, hearts, and brains to do mighty things. And other generations have done likewise: the Emancipation Generation, the World War II Generation, and the Civil Rights Generation are some outstanding examples of this idea. There are many others in our history. I don’t know what name our generation will receive, but from time to time I fear that we will be known as the Corrupt Generation. In order to avoid such a name our generation has to do mighty things. We have to clean up the corruption and reestablish the high principles that your generation fought for. And, in my mind, the only way to do that is to involve as many people as possible. Cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will always seek power, but if we are all on guard, we can stop them, or at least control them.
JM: That approach might well work. And 21st century technology makes it possible.
SE: Yes, it does. And to respond to GW’s question about the other element of size, we will have to expand the scope of our national government. All of our institutions will have to be governed by the People. They will have to work toward goals that are set by the People, and we will have to establish ways to determine if these institutions are living up to the demands of the People. Government and all our institutions will have to serve the People.
GW: If the new government requires more people, won’t the support staff increase in size as well? And if the scope of the government widens to include most of our major institutions, won’t the regulatory staff also increase commensurately?
SE: Yes, there will be a need for more personnel, but that is a very good thing. First, increasing the oversight staff will keep things under better control. The effects of factions will be controlled. Second, this will reduce our national turmoil and make the lives of the People more stable and predictable. No longer will they be blindsided by the schemes cooked up by avaricious bankers and the like. Third, by including more young citizens we will be preparing them to take over the government. That is why I propose that citizens of all ages and conditions be eligible for any and all posts, and why I propose that students at all levels be assigned important roles in the actual operation of the new government.
JM: This is a promising idea, SE. By involving so many people in the operation of our government, they will be in position to identify problems and suggest solutions for those problems. I particularly liked the idea of the Ideas System. As I have followed the discoveries concerning Charles Darwin’s idea about Evolution by Natural Selection, and as I have come to understand about genetic variation, I have realized that our social world evolves just as our physical beings evolve. Genetic variation was necessary to create our species. Without genetic variation there would be no Homo sapiens. So it is with the evolution of our social structures. Without ideas there would be no progress. We would exist in a state of stagnation. But ideas produce changes, and changes, done well and wisely, produce progress. In short, America must continually adapt or die.
SE: I am glad you like the Ideas System. It is a clear example of how many brains can do many mighty things. The Ideas System will enable any citizen to publish his ideas for the rest of the citizenry to consider. Good ideas will surface and many citizens will join their brains to improve them, and ultimately the best ideas will be put into action.
JM: That system holds much promise. After reviewing the ideas that have been introduced into public policy since I left the office of President, I am disappointed at the level of thought. It seems that the most innovative ideas have been aimed at taking advantage of the People in some way. The members of Congress are few in number and consequently have few good ideas, and the ideas that the lobbyists pass on to our representatives are almost always selfish and against the common good. The poor quality of the ideas that come from our government is a clear signal that factions have gained control. It is sad, but it is not too late to change things.
GW: When your proposals are presented to the public they are likely to be ignored. After all the public has ignored my ideas for more than two centuries and they have ignored the ideas of Dwight Eisenhower for more than half a century as well. So they will likely ignore your ideas. But all you can do is all you can do. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 1 that there would be many who would oppose the new Constitution. He said that some would fight against it because it would reduce their power or importance. And others, he said, would fight against it because it would not increase their power or importance.
JM: One of the most frustrating things I have heard for centuries now is the false hypothesis that big government is a bad thing. Another specious argument is that the current generation must try to recreate the opinions of the original generation that wrote the Constitution. Nonsense. We Founders, as we came to be called, did not hesitate to change things. We declared our independence, fought a war, wrote the Articles of Confederation, threw them out and wrote the Constitution. Then in the first Congress we wrote the Bill of Rights and modified the Constitution we had just ratified. We didn’t sit on our hands. We followed the path of reason based on experience. I don’t know how so many Americans came to be so afraid.
GW: JM, I think we are preaching to the choir here. But I cannot refrain from making this final observation. The idea of increasing the reach and scope of government, while increasing the number of people who run the government, is a good one. I think it will work and could work very well. It all depends on the People. If they don’t embrace these ideas or some ideas very similar, then they will sit on their hands and matters will worsen. If they embrace them, then they will implement them. And America will at last be beautiful.
With that, GW and JM stood and moved toward the door. JM turned and said that Abraham Lincoln was working on a name for the 21st century generation.
GW: Speaking of our tallest President, I think our next discussion should focus on the seven hated groups, and ABE should have much to say about how our systems of government and economics still mistreat more than half our population. JM, why don’t you see if ABE can make our next meeting—and while you are at it, see if FDR can also meet with us.
Then GW waved his hand and they vanished. But, for a moment, GW’s voice could be heard. With great emphasis he said:
“Cogitate! Think your way forward! Adapt or die!”
