American Buddhist Net

Here's the basic idea: Since both the executive and legislative branches of government are clogged with special interests, we do not have a government that is as efficient or effective as it could be. This problem could be fixed by expanding the legislative branch (Congress) to include millions of qualified citizens while largely replacing the executive branch with a national agenda. These changes could be accomplished through the use of computers for communication among qualified voters. They could be done in such a way that the government would better reflect fundamental American values and become fairer and more efficient.

Here's the basic outline:

1) The executive branch (the president) would be largely replaced by national policy objectives, or the National Agenda. All registered voters would be allowed to vote once a year on what these objectives should be.

Discussion: The principle function of the presidency today is to define national policy objectives. This results in voters choosing people who they believe will steer the nation in the direction they think is best. The problem is that the president is but one person who is fallible and rarely lives up to the public's expectations or represents their best interests. If this one person is replaced by a National Agenda that is defined once a year, national policy will better reflect the needs and wishes of the people. It will also allow for a longer list of issues that will not be determined by party politics or special interests. The voting age could be lowered to twelve and all registered voters would be allowed to vote.

2) The current legislative branch of a few hundred people (the Senate and House of Representatives) would be replaced by a vastly expanded body of qualified citizens who would be empowered to write, propose, and vote on legislation.

Discussion: To qualify for a position in this expanded legislative branch, citizens--any citizen--would be required to pass a test on the basic principles of American government. This test would be long and difficult enough to ensure that legislators have a good grasp of government, the Constitution (which would need a few changes), American law and history. The legislative branch would still be composed of a Senate and House and all legislation would still have to pass both houses before becoming law. The size and composition of the House of Citizens (nee House of Representatives) would be determined solely by the number of citizens who had passed the qualifications test. Ideally, it would be made up of 5-40 million citizen legislators who would represent the entire nation. The Citizen Senate would be similarly constructed but with a provision to give a bit more weight to sparsely populated states, but not as much weight as they are now given. Citizens legislators would be members of either the House of Citizens or the Citizen Senate, but not both at the same time.

More detail:

1) There would remain some need for a human president. He or she could be chosen by lottery from a list of qualified citizens. The advantage of the lottery is it would remove both the influence of special interests on the president and the primitive luster the office now holds. The president would simply oversee the execution of the National Agenda as determined yearly by registered voters. He or she would also represent the nation abroad. The presidency would be a paid position with a term limit of two years. Cabinet positions would be chosen in a similar manner, by lottery from a list of qualified citizens. Their jobs would also be to implement the National Agenda in areas directly related to their positions. The president, or the president and all members of the cabinet taken together, could be given the power to veto legislation if this were thought necessary.

2) There would no longer be any need for a sitting Congress. All laws would be proposed, considered, and voted on through computer connections among members of the House of Citizens and the Citizen Senate. This process would be 100% transparent and open to the view of all citizens of the United States, who would also be encouraged to comment on bills as they proceed through the legislature.

Objections:

1) This would require rewriting parts of the Constitution.

That would be difficult, but not impossible. The ideal new constitution would resemble the old one in as many ways as possible--especially preserving the Bill of Rights--but would include changes that would permit the establishment of a House of Citizens, a Citizen Senate, and a National Agenda overseen by an executive branch as described above. A government resembling what is being described here will be more likely to appear in a small country like Iceland before it will be tried here.

2) It would be too confusing.

The National Agenda would give the basic outline for the year's activities. The House of Citizens and the Citizen Senate would pursue that Agenda. That is not so confusing.

3) The House of Citizens and the Citizen Senate are themselves too confusing. The system would be chaotic.

Not really. Good ideas would evolve. Discussion groups would form. People would tend to follow what interested them the most. Established organizations (environmental, religious, professional, etc.) would help define issues. The big advantage to the expanded system is it would not be susceptible to unfair lobbying, cronyism, bribery, machine politics, or deceit. Omnibus bills that include pork, hidden provisions, and unwise compromises would no longer be viable; there would be too many people watching. As matters stand now, members of Congress are easily and often influenced by special interests and party machine politics. Say good-bye to all of that. Corporations and groups would still be allowed to lobby (basically advertise), but they would no longer be able to influence individual members of the Citizens Congress because there would simply be too many of those members.

4) Computers are not reliable enough.

They could be made reliable enough. Ideally, citizen legislators would be able to work on legislation and vote from their home computers.

The system we have now draws on the primitive human need to follow human leaders, who in today's world have become mere images that hold powerful and unhealthy sway over hundreds of millions of people. If citizens are empowered to vote and decide on legislation, millions of them will become active participants in a system that will be more open, more transparent, fairer and more representative.