My name is Yoram Gat. I am a member of a group of people who are interested in promoting the selection of public officials by lot. As lysias above notes, this method is called sortition (also known as allotment).

We recently launched a blog devoted to the dissemination the idea of sortition and the exchange of related items (news, papers, etc.) The blog is called Equality by Lot, it is at http://equalitybylot.wordpress.com/. Please drop by and join the conversation.

There were a few interludes of oligarchic rule in Athens during this period, especially after Athens lost wars, but democracy — with sortition — always returned after a short time. It had become as much a part of the national character as republicanism has been part of the French national character after 1870. When Athenian democracy was ended once and for all, it was by the external force of Roman military power.

The computer & software need to be built on open-source technology, and we need to be able to check their integrity whenever we feel like it!

Let us not repeat the mistakes made when they implemented electronic voting!

Done the right way, it could have momentum. I’m just trying not to post the same old “when are we all going to wake up” stuff. Know what I’m saying?

I believe to lessen the strength of the executive and make the legislature preeminent, why not similarly choose agency heads and cabinet members?

Stagger them for five year terms with the cabinet distributed, and CIA, NSA, and NSC leadership staggered for certain. That would be similar to the chief of the FED having to pass approval but serve on a cycle different from Senators and the President.

Ambassador appointments, etc., would need a look at civil service categorization, and provisions but could be conformed.

Last, how do you reform the fact that the pipeline for information to the top has undue control on the decisions made based on the information? How do you assure the quality and agenda-free credibility of information flow?

Would you require periodic reevaluation and reenactment of treaties?

What about all legislation having sunshine clauses, so that unless reenacted the changes cease, date certain?

What about tax policy simplification?

How do you set the pay for senior officials within civil service?

I am trying to get traction for one simple Constitutional amendment:

“Money is not speech, and constitutional rights of persons apply only to actual human beings and not corporations.”

Keep it simple. With that change in the constitution the passage of financial reform could not be overturned on bogus grounds as the supreme court [no longer deserving capitalization as signifying loss of respect] most recently did.

Finally, I would use census data, not IRS data, and the census need not be on a ten year cycle since redistricting could be more frequently done, and hence be fairer that way as populations shift.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

What finally prompted me to write this piece was the flurry of similar articles proposing various amendments to abolish corporate personhood or restrict corporate influence on elections while missing the fact that our elections of the past 10 years have been “decided” with electronic machines that were all but built to allow external manipulation of result tallies and a track record of doing just that. Bradblog has been all over this and it goes back to Clint Curtis in 2000. None actually go to the root of fundamental reform of our system to ensure real citizen representation.

Of course, I know my idea probably has a snowball’s chance in Hell of being either enacted or ratified since so many powerful interests’ oxes would be gored. That said, as I have spoken of it to people I’ve met, I found that people from across the political spectrum have given favorable responses and agree to it’s fundamental fairness. So if an idea can appeal to socialists, liberals, moderates, conservatives and even teabaggers like my brother-in-law, it might just have some actual merit to it.

As for “The Great Turning Point”, remember that we’re have just as many mercenaries in both Iraq and Afghanistan as actual troops. My take is they will bankrupt the nation before they actually institute a draft. Meanwhile, suburbanization has helped to isolate the poor and increase their numbers to provide the new Janissaries for their dreams of Empire.

So, if we ARE to have a Great Turning Point and we’re all talking amendments, an amendment that can draw support from across the political spectrum stands the best chance of surviving the organized campaign of vitriol from the threatened interests that is sure to be unleashed on it if it gains popularity.

There’s too much money and power for people at the top. And naturally, they’ll fight like hell to keep it.

Another point to consider. Lots of people keep talking about “The Great Turning Point” that will push people over the edge (hopefully not violently) to act. Consider for a second everything that’s happened up until now. And despite all of that, do we have a daily, growing and visible protest movement? It stopped the Vietnam War. Why can’t it be done again?

David Crosby had a good point on this. The reason this movement hasn’t happened yet is because there’s no national draft. Iraq and Afghanistan are in many ways like Vietnam was in the beginning. At night, you’d eat dinner and listen to the daily body count (almost like listening to the stock market results for the day). But as more people were drafted and killed, the reality hit home.

That hasn’t happened yet with Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s far away, sanitized and fit into nice and neat soundbites (for your convenience). People in the rest of the world can deal with Press TV, Al Jaezeera English and the reality that they show. Yet, the Stateside MSM has certain “standards” to maintain.

Obama has said that he will do ANYTHING to maintain our “national values” (power in the world). Do you really think that he’s going to let China become the dominant power in the world? So while I hope I’m wrong, I wouldn’t be surprised if he did reinstate the draft. How else will you maintain wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran at the same time?

Somebody has to fight them. And when it’s your son/daughter/mom/dad, how can you then not say that this does affect me?

zacknick:Actually, a fair amount. My purpose in writing this piece was not to change the structure of government, merely to open it up to real citizen participation. As for the Senate, I was born and raised in the most populous state in the Union, California. Now I live in New Mexico, one of the least populous ones. I agree with the intent of the framers that the Senate should stay as a check on the power of the more populous states and help prevent the Tyranny of the Majority. I DO agree that there is no reason, with today’s technology, that we could not establish direct democracy with all citizens voting on everything. That said, I was attempting to encapsulate, in one amendment, a sea change in that participation. In fact, passage of my amendment would foster the growth of direct democracy, particularly if similar amendments were enacted at the state level. I have no illusions about it’s chances of passage since no politician will vote for something that will put them out of a job. I also note that the only time multiple amendments were ratified was the Bill of Rights. Also remember, the landmark case that enshrined corporate personhood, Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886, never actually addresses corporate personhood. The language was inserted into the decision by a law clerk after the fact. So the issue of corporate personhood was never directly addressed by the Supreme Court one way or the other.

Daniel Peacefully: I quite agree. If you look at the history of our amendments, the overall direction was to increase liberty and bring the voting franchise to an ever-greater percentage of the citizenry. I, personally, was a benificiary of the 26th amendment(18-year-old voting), since I was 18 and in the Navy during the 1972 election. What my amendment does is to increase liberty by opening up representation to the citizenry at large instead of some discrete self-perpetuating political class. Liberte’, Egalite’, Fraternate’!

With the technology we have today, everybody could vote from home and voting would be mandatory ($350-$1000 fine depending on income) as well as civics. We could actually have this kind of modern direct democracy today but no, of course those bloodsuckers aren’t interested in cutting off their corporate teat and so many corrupt and genocidal constructs would come crashing down.

Not to be unkind but how much thought did you actually give this post?

Simon:What we have now has continuity and memory but not repreentation. You are also correct in wanting character and committment. Admittedly, I was actually taught civics in my elementary and secondary education, something lacking in today’s dumbed-down educational system. That said, I would trust my fellow citizens to perform right action more than the political class we have now. As for the judiciary, the question that must be asked of nominees is this:
What is your philosophy to enhance personal liberty and the rights of citizens in this republic?

Poolman: This is WHY civics and history education must be paramount. we had it when I went to school. Why not now?

cdithaca: I agree that a certain percentage of people are dumber than a bag of hammers but would put my trust in the 70% majority to educate them as well. Also, this would be one amendment not 5 or 6 as you propose. I DO like the idea of tying this in with computerized reapportionment of districts. As for the rest, they could be accomplished by statute instead of amendments.

hatchcar: This amendment would go a long way to decentralization since it would bring non-politicians and ordinary citizens into positions of power. They could use common sense methods to determine that a self-perpetuating bureaucracy is not accomplishing the job and take steps to rectify the situation. The idea IS to build a more perfect union, after all. As for corporate influence, while still dangerous, they wouldn’t know who to target and the targets are replaced wholesale each term so the system would be self-correcting. The problem is not government. It is inefficient, corrupt government.

GregBacon: This method would tend to prevent a new revolution with the violence and hardships it engenders. The framers were correct to trust in the citizenry’s common sense to act in their and the nation’s best interest. Also, since it is a random selection, no one would know who to bribe/cajole/blackmail/suicide until they were chosen and that might only work for that term of office at best. On the other hand, they might get a smart-ass like me who would tell them, like the young Mondego, to Do Your Worst. Money and power will always tend to corrupt. You ensure limiting power by limiting service to one term only.