Congressional representatives are richer, Americans are not

Gap Between Americans, Congressional Representatives Grows Considerably Over Last 25 Years

A new investigation by the Washington Post has revealed the financial gap between Americans and their representatives in Congress has widened considerably over the past 25 years. Between 1984 and 2009, the median net worth of a member of the House more than doubled from $280,000 to $725,000 in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars. Over the same period, the wealth of an American family has declined slightly, with the comparable median figure sliding to just more than $20,000. A key reason for the shift is the soaring cost of political campaigns. According to the Federal Election Commission, since 1976, the average amount spent by winning House candidates quadrupled in inflation-adjusted dollars, to $1.4 million.

Humiliated? When lotteries go wrong.

We have already seen one major catastrophe in 2011 with a lottery allocation procedure, when the ‘Green Card’ went wrong. There were a reported 22,000 people world-wide who thought that they had won, and were then told that they hadn’t.

How did these lottery-losers feel? ‘Humiliated’ according to a paper by two kleroterians Jon Dolle and Anne Newman.

Badly-run lotteries leave the participants, and even the winners, feeling humiliated. Even a properly-run lottery may leave both winners and losers feeling bad, if there is not complete transparency about the randomisation mechanisms used. Continue reading

2011 review – statistics

Below are some statistics about the second year of Equality-by-Lot. Comparable numbers for last year can be found here.

2011 Page views Posts Comments
Jan 901 8 108
Feb 2,085 17 392
Mar 1,437 11 156
Apr 1,499 10 115
May 801 11 73
June 1,048 16 104
July 805 9 110
Aug 994 6 54
Sept 1,120 5 103
Oct 1,930 7 151
Nov 1,205 5 32
Dec (to 23rd) 1,759 13 239
Total 15,584 118 1,637

Note that page views do not include visits by logged-in contributors – the wordpress system does not count those visits.

The system reports that posts were made by 7 authors during 2011, with one of those authors making only one contribution. (There were, of course, many other authors quoted and linked to.)

There are currently 28 email and WordPress followers of this blog.

Searching for “distribution by lot” (with quotes) using Google returns Equality-by-Lot as the second result (out of “about 23,000 results”). Searching for “sortition” returns Equality-by-Lot as the 9th result (out of “about 82,900 results”). Searching for “kleroterion” returns Equality-by-Lot as the 10th result (out of “about 4,600 results”).

2010 Page views Posts Comments
Jan 288 8 30
Feb 242 12 29
Mar 417 7 28
Apr 252 5 16
May 344 6 18
Jun 259 6 15
Jul 324 9 20
Aug 372 7 93
Sep 550 10 38
Oct 704 6 97
Nov 1091 10 133
Dec (thru 23rd) 458 6 41
Total 5301 92 558

Strategies to implement sortition?

I’ve been thinking recently about strategies to implement sortition – especially incremental strategies that start with relatively small, feasible steps, and then gradually build up to more ambitious goals. I have a special interest in strategies that could be feasible on a municipal level in or near the city where I live (San Francisco), because I’d like to be part of such a project, but I’m also very interested in any strategies people have suggested that might work in any part of the world.

Harald, you recently proposed two strategies:

  1. Add a small number of allotted members to an existing elected legislature, then increase the number of allotted members
  2. Conduct one-off sortition exercises (with the allotted bodies having some decision making power) on first a few issues, then more

Kevin O’Leary proposed starting by creating an allotted legislative body (the “People’s Assembly”) that would be advisory only, then later giving it legislative authority.

I’ve been thinking about three other strategies:

  1. Conducting a foundation-funded, local government supported experiment with a municipal level second chamber chosen by lot (in US cities, the legislative branch is usually unicameral).
  2. Creating an actual allotted second chamber in a municipality, with legislative authority; then doing the same in a few more municipalities, then replacing one branch of a state legislature with an allotted chamber in a small state or province.
  3. Creating a single purpose allotted legislative body (say, on health care or environmental legislation), then adding more.

What other strategies do you folks know of?

Lawrence Lessig: Democracy vouchers

Jorge Cancio drew my attention to Lawrence Lessig’s proposal for fixing government.

We should have seen this coming: if McChesney and Nichols offered us a fix for elitist media by using media vouchers, Prof. Lessig will have us fix elitist government using democracy vouchers (book, article, interview):

So long as elections cost money, we won’t end Congress’s dependence on its funders. But we can change it. We can make “the funders” “the people.” Following Arizona, Maine and Connecticut, we could adopt a system of small-dollar public funding for Congress.

Here’s just one way: almost every voter pays at least $50 in some form of federal taxes. So imagine a system that gave a rebate of that first $50 in the form of a “democracy voucher.” That voucher could then be given to any candidate for Congress who agreed to one simple condition: the only money that candidate would accept to finance his or her campaign would be either “democracy vouchers” or contributions from citizens capped at $100. No PAC money. No $2,500 checks. Small contributions only. And if the voter didn’t use the voucher? The money would pass to his or her party, or, if an independent, back to this public funding system.

Lessig apparently doesn’t perceive that his proposed fix is reproducing in dollars what the system already implements in votes. After all, if a candidate cannot win without money, the candidate surely cannot win without votes. If the rich are influential in the current system because it takes money to gather votes, why won’t they remain influential because it would take money to gather voucher money?

Rod Rylander: Thinking outside the ballot box

Rod Rylander writes in the OpEdNews website, offering a proposal similar to that of Callenbach and Phillips:

Only a True Democracy Can Meet The People’s Needs; We Need a New Way to Select Representatives to Congress

Given the legislative paralysis we now see in Washington, it is all too obvious that American democracy has been undermined by the influence of party politics, money, lobbyists, and the shallow bread-and-circuses quality of our mass communications.

To remedy things, we need to think outside the box — and I mean way outside the box.

My solution for reforming our dysfunctional, corrupt Congress — specifically, the House of Representatives — is to replace members now tied to the unproductive, toxic system of party politics with ordinary citizens who are qualified but randomly selected. The procedure I envision is this: In each precinct of a congressional district, one person would be selected at random from a body of citizen volunteers who meet qualifying criteria set forth in a Constitutional amendment. The district-wide representative to Congress would then be randomly selected from the body of those picked at the precinct level. No politicking would be allowed at either stage of the selection process — and would in any case be irrelevant to the totally random system of selection. The Congressional term limit would be six years, with staggered selections scheduled annually. The result would be that in each successive year one-sixth of the Congress would consist of new representatives.

[…]

Which actors for each activity?

In a recent post, I proposed a generic set of activities for a legislative process, as an aide to conversations about design. After getting some useful feedback from Jorge, Yoram and Keith, the structure now looks like this:

1.     Choosing issues to write bills for
1.1.  Choosing values and goals for the polity
1.2.  Choosing and revising categories of issues
1.3.  Reviewing current legislation and its outcomes against values and goals
1.4.  Proposing issues in each category to write bills for
1.5.  Deciding which issues to write bills for
2.     Writing bills
2.1.  Developing and revising objectives and criteria for bills
2.2.  Reviewing and accepting objectives and criteria for bills
2.3.  Developing and revising alternative bill “designs”
2.4.  Reviewing and accepting bill “designs”
2.5.  Writing and revising the language of bills
2.6.  Reviewing and accepting the language of bills
3.     Voting on finalized bills
3.1.  Education about issues and bills (learning by the decision makers)
3.2.  Advocacy (by advocates, arguing for and against bills)
3.3.  Deliberation (among decision makers, after hearing arguments)
3.4.  Voting on bills

I would like to ask anyone in this forum – especially those of you who have made specific proposals — which actors you would propose to carry out each of these activities (for example, an allotted chamber, an elected legislature, a single-purpose allotted “panel,” the whole electorate, etc.). I’m hoping to arrange your answers side by side in a matrix, like this:

Activity Actors  proposed by person 1 Actors  proposed by person 2
Activity 1
Activity 2
Activity 3

I think that if we could see everyone’s ideas about “who would do what” side by side, it would be much easier to see where we agree and where we disagree.

Are you willing to do this? And if so, what would be the most convenient way? I’ve created a Google doc that you could fill in, with columns written in for Terry, John, Jorge, Yoram, and Keith so far. Anyone else can simply log in, add your name in a new column, and fill in the actors that you’re proposing. Or, if you don’t use Google docs, I could send you a spreadsheet to fill out (please leave a comment below).

One other thing – if you disagree with my list of legislative activities, please feel free so say so, and to suggest improvements!

Call for 2011 review input

As we did last year (1, 2), I would like to create a post or two summarizing the sortition- and distribution-by-lot-related developments of 2011 and the activity here on Equality-by-Lot.

Please use the comments to give your input on what you think are the most mention-worthy events or essays of the past year.

Tom Hodgkinson: Boris ought to know his Plato

Tom Hodgkinson, editor of The Idler, invokes Plato on the pages of The Independent:

[I]f Boris [Johnson] knew his Plato, which he ought to, having been to Eton and everything, then he would recognise in the protests, riots and strikes that have marked this year a sign that the people ain’t happy with the situation. He would also recognise himself as being a member of the short-sighted oligarchy – oligarchy meaning “control by a wealthy minority”. Reading Plato’s Republic, I was struck by the parallels with a typical cycle that he describes. In Platonic terms, it would seem that an oligarchy has taken over UK plc, and that this oligarchy has made too many loans, thereby pauperising the people, and now fails to see what is happening right beneath their noses: that the people are talking about revolution. The good news, though, is that a real democracy may be in store:

Plato writes that when the pursuit of riches remains unchecked, resentment breeds:

[…]

This is the situation that will lead to social upheaval: “Democracy originates when the poor win, kill or exile their opponents, and give the rest equal rights and opportunities of office, appointment to office being as a rule by lot.

This is what the people want: a real democracy, government by the people, and not by a clique comprising top politicians and CEOs. […]

Rodriguez and DeNardis: Can Allocation by Sortition Resolve the Connecticut Education-Financing Impasse?

A new paper about lotteries in education mentions some familiar names.

Abstract: It has been over 40 years since Connecticut amended its Constitution to ensure citizens a right to a free public education. Despite the constitutionally prescribed right, dramatic inequities in educational conditions continued to characterize the state’s K-12 educational system, especially between suburban/rural white and urban minority school districts. In the 1970s plaintiffs challenged the prevailing mechanism for allocating education funds with a host of court cases that tackled the thorny question of how much financial responsibility the state should assume to equalize the spending disparities between school districts. Prodded by court decisions, many formulas and approaches have been proposed by the Connecticut General Assembly in response to the various legal challenges yet the state has never fully funded the cost sharing formula nor lived up to the 50-50 cost sharing arrangement envisaged by some policymakers. The situation remains at an impasse with the latest court action, CCJEF v. Rell (2005), to be resolved no sooner than 2014 by most accounts.
Continue reading