More than a number of years ago as I worked toward getting my college education, I had to take public speaking, my persuasive speech was political - not national politics, state politics took center stage in the argument. In theory my thinking would also have a potential positive effect at the national level as well. Here's what I laid out - working from the idea that elected official should make the median income of those they represent and have many of the perks they receive taken away. I compared my home state of California to Texas (which was the home state of the professor). At the time top California representatives made 6 figures a year and had a very low approval rating. While at that time Texas representatives were paid per diem and had a much higher approval rating. The professor said the speech really caused her to stop and think about. All that to say, I like the idea put forth in this article and would put my hand up to be part of something like that.
This was very interesting but I felt like it was cut off before it was done. What became of any of the proposals? Are they now law?
Americans, though they complain about the status quo, seem quite resistant to change. "That's the way it's always been done" is the dominant refrain. I think there are some more modest proposals that could help fix our representative democracy, including some of the things mentioned like strict term limits & removing perks, but also overturning Citizens United, using ranked choice voting, and shortening the campaign period dramatically.
I agree. Without knowing if any of these 149 proposals were adopted and put into action it's not possible to know if this was a worthwhile exercise. Or just one of those things to make people think and feel they are actually making a difference while politicians continue doing whatever they want to do anyway.
This is the most exciting thing I've read in a while! I've been working on a project proposing constitutional amendments for reforms that already have broad popular support, and I keep running into the same wall: the people who would need to pass these reforms in Congress and the states are the same people whose power depends on blocking them. Landemore's argument gets to the same conclusion I have: stop trying to fix the politicians and route around them entirely.
I'll admit that my own instinct was more modest. For constitutional reform, I assumed we'd have to organize voters outside of the party system to say they'd support whichever candidate campaigns on the reforms, regardless of party, so that both sides would see an electoral benefit to embracing the democratic consensus. But perhaps taking it out of politicians' hands entirely might be more effective, in the long run.
I'd also been thinking about "vote coaches" — paid local researchers who could help overwhelmed voters navigate their ballots, attend city council meetings, post their findings in real time online, so that people could tune in and tune out without feeling like they're flying blind every November. And I still think that has value at the local level, where the information gap is arguably worse than at the national level. But Landemore's proposal addresses something my idea doesn't: the fundamental problem that elected representatives, no matter how well-informed the voters who choose them are, still become captive to party incentives and donor demands the moment they take office. Better-informed voters choosing from the same broken menu is still a broken menu.
What if both ideas could coexist? Randomly selected citizen assemblies tackling the areas where national partisan politics systematically fails but coordination is important — climate, healthcare, tax policy, immigration — while elected politicians handle the more local, granular governance that actually benefits from long-term institutional knowledge. And then coaches helping everyday people process what these national and local assemblies are doing, making the deliberations accessible rather than buried in C-SPAN obscurity. The French convention's retention rate is extremely impressive and worth analyzing, but I think the real challenge isn't getting 150 people to show up, it's getting millions to trust and engage with what those 150 people produce. That's where the information layer matters a lot.
The 15% congressional approval number should haunt every defender of the status quo. We don't accept 15% satisfaction from any other institution in our lives. The fact that we shrug at it for the one institution that's supposed to represent all of us says everything about how low our expectations have fallen.
Timothy, your idea of Vote Coaches is a good one as many never really fully understand what they are really voting for in so many elections other than what little sound bites are telling them . Granted, when you have a national election where say 335 mil. folks are being asked to vote for something or someone , the message needs to be brief and poignant to catch their attention and get them to vote one way or the other, but , communicating what the issues are and explaining them to the honest listeners is so important to making the right choices in voting someone into office, in my way of thinking.
Thanks Clark! Yeah, I think it would be kinda twofold: explain everything in a way that people who want a summarized version can vote with more information than they would if they were too overwhelmed to do their own research. But then there are the people who flat out don’t really care to know how or why things work, they just want the government to function without constant cries for attention. Getting to know someone local, who is similar to you, that you can trust, might help these people completely outsource their ballot to someone who actually knows what they are talking about, and has earned trust. That would make the system a lot less vulnerable to mudslinging and political ads that currently have a lot of power in elections.
Thanks, Timothy, as what you are saying makes sense to me.
There is so much misinformation just screwing things up with many voters buying into the lies because they sound right but are really a way to garner votes without any basis of actually producing the results we all are hoping for and so, we wait patiently to see if the promises become a reality .
You impress me as one who has taken it upon yourself to see to it that our democratic republic remains strong and vibrant so that we all can participate in making it a more perfect union. We can all give our lives to that prospect by participating in the voting process that will generate a more positive outcome in sustaining what actually works and jettisoning that which doesn't work , but," if it ain't broke, don't fix it" either, right?
It's time to learn from our mistakes in letting Trump even be elected last year and turn this situation around for the better going forward by booting he and his ilk out of office and replace it with an administration that is for all Americans and not just the rich . Being 82, I hope that I live to see it for my progenies' sake ,as well as, for the rest of our country, so, let's keep up the good fight, my friend.
Several years ago Washington State convened a similar panel to consider possible measures related to climate change (I was on a standby support group). Our experience was very similar to what this post describes. The panel reached consensus on a range of measures, many of which were incorporated into legislation. A key part of this effort was that the citizens panel was explicitly advisory and did not have any actual authority. This gave them latitude to think broadly and speak candidly. All in all I think it was a successful and valuable exercise.
This makes more sense. State based and an advisory board rather than governing board (see my comment). How were members of the panel selected? Did the state reach out randomly to citizens or were people asked to volunteer?
I’m traveling so I don’t have access to my records, but as I recall we got assistance from a European organization that supports citizens democracy efforts. The panel was selected from a stratified random sample of a pool of volunteers. The stratification ensured the panel accurately represented the entire state based on multiple criteria including age, political affiliation, income, gender identity, and other factors I can’t remember. Here’s a link with more information: https://www.waclimateassembly.org/
I've been thinking how frustrated I am with representative democracy. I mean, I would rather this than tyranny or monarchy, but it still feels inadequate and messier than perhaps it's worth. I want to hear more about these ideas as well as others. I'm ready to talk about this.
The concepts in the article certainly have merit. I especially am in favor of policies that involve non-Elite Americans. The various solutions discussed here, and elsewhere, such as Constitutional amendments, multi-member House districts, ranked voting, overturn Citizens United, Citizen assemblies, tax funded elections also have merit.
Unfortunately, any discussion of a Constitutional amendment is a no go from the start. Progressives would get killed with any Constitutional Convention, or Convention of the States as Republicans own the majority of State Houses. And with the threshold of 75% of the states have to approve any amendment - neither party is going to agree to a change.
In addition, all the other proposals depend on a Congress and President to be on board, and with OUR current ultra-partisanship, now on steroids with the Great Gerrymandering of 2026, it's going to become even more difficult to pass reforms. There is only one solution - WE have to shake up the system, and change the playing field.
Until we increase the size of the House of Representatives to properly represent the interests of We the People - NOTHING changes. Congress froze the House at the 1910 level of 435 members with a new law - The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. America's population has gone from 92.5 million in 1910, to 342 million today - a 3.7 X increase, while the Federal budget has risen from $676 Million to $3.8 Trillion - and we still have only 435 of US trying to oversee 'them'? The single most important function the House is supposed to serve is that of overseeing the spending of the Federal budget - OUR hard earned tax dollars.
In effect this has allowed both parties to place a stranglehold on OUR political system and freeze out any strong 3rd party, allow Big Money to buy OUR 'local' District elections, ignore Article I, Section 2 of OUR Constitution that requires increasing the size of the House with each census.
WE can change the system by tripling the size of the House. Sounds crazy- right? More of them?
I have no problem with what I know and understand about our current way of voting .
The problem we have today, however, is with the unbridled amount of money that is pumped into the elections by the billionaire class for their picks of the folks they want to run our government over what the rest of us may want instead but invariably can't outspend the Big Dollar donors, who usually get who they want into positions of power and influence to guarantee their elections.
Solution? Why not take an equal amount from American's incomes at tax time and use it to fund the elections to where each candidate would receive the same amount to cover their election costs and level the playing field by doing so? Then, all the candidates state their intentions for running and voters elect on the basis of the promises made . Once in office they seek to work together to form a better union within our country for the betterment of all Americans.
Granted, this is a simple plan and very workable to me , but , someone will try to make it more complicated to seek some kind of advantage against the other party and that's where corruption begins , in the confusion and chaos that ensues so that cover ups can hide the deception, thus, there will need to be a mechanism to insure that everything remains above board.
There was an NYT article a few months ago about a "deliberative democracy" setup in some European country -- I can't seem to dig up the article at the moment but it was Denmark maybe? It's probably featured in this woman's book. Like the French convention cited here, they select citizens from across the country to deliberate on issues like housing, climate, etc. It's been in place since 2019 I think and I believe it's done continuously. They then submit their suggested reforms to lawmakers who can take them up (or not). I've been a fan of the idea of politics without politicians since I read this article. I think about it like this: if you've been politicking all your life, you have tunnel vision for politicking. If you've been consulting, you have tunnel vision for consulting. If you've been lobbying, you have tunnel vision for lobbying and so on and so forth. Sometimes (many times) issues need fresh eyes, energy, and perspective that only comes from widening the pool of people to review, assess, and address the issues. We all bring different perspectives and expertise to any given conversation... why should governance be any different?
A system of government where decisions are made by everyday people from all across the country chosen by a national lottery? Most people don't even vote. Also, has this person ever had jury duty? The difference between a national lottery and the example she gave is that those people CHOSE to be there. Just like jury duty the exemptions and conditions would be onerous - and the travel! Where is an easy location for these people to get together? The US is a lot bigger than France! Plus every state has it's own laws and regulations beyond the federal to consider. Sorry to be so negative but I cannot even begin to imagine how this would work.
Hypothetically, because of our size, this could be something adopted at the state level, and then expanded upon. Maybe this would encourage more people to vote if they thought it would make a difference in their country.
I came here to say the same thing….ummm has anyone done jury duty?! The time I served on a jury it was horrendous….as you mentioned the first obstacle is getting folks to actually do it, and then once selected/during trial it felt like no one even listened to the instructions, didn’t want to listen to each other, some just wanted to roll over just to get out of there, etc…..and that was only TWELVE people!
Good point, Jennifer, Keeping it simple is imperative ,but the question is "What is the best way to communicate with the most people across our nation?"
More than a number of years ago as I worked toward getting my college education, I had to take public speaking, my persuasive speech was political - not national politics, state politics took center stage in the argument. In theory my thinking would also have a potential positive effect at the national level as well. Here's what I laid out - working from the idea that elected official should make the median income of those they represent and have many of the perks they receive taken away. I compared my home state of California to Texas (which was the home state of the professor). At the time top California representatives made 6 figures a year and had a very low approval rating. While at that time Texas representatives were paid per diem and had a much higher approval rating. The professor said the speech really caused her to stop and think about. All that to say, I like the idea put forth in this article and would put my hand up to be part of something like that.
This was very interesting but I felt like it was cut off before it was done. What became of any of the proposals? Are they now law?
Americans, though they complain about the status quo, seem quite resistant to change. "That's the way it's always been done" is the dominant refrain. I think there are some more modest proposals that could help fix our representative democracy, including some of the things mentioned like strict term limits & removing perks, but also overturning Citizens United, using ranked choice voting, and shortening the campaign period dramatically.
I'd definitely be for overturning Citizens United.
I agree. Without knowing if any of these 149 proposals were adopted and put into action it's not possible to know if this was a worthwhile exercise. Or just one of those things to make people think and feel they are actually making a difference while politicians continue doing whatever they want to do anyway.
By operating off of the KISS principle ( Keep It Simple, Silly).
This is the most exciting thing I've read in a while! I've been working on a project proposing constitutional amendments for reforms that already have broad popular support, and I keep running into the same wall: the people who would need to pass these reforms in Congress and the states are the same people whose power depends on blocking them. Landemore's argument gets to the same conclusion I have: stop trying to fix the politicians and route around them entirely.
I'll admit that my own instinct was more modest. For constitutional reform, I assumed we'd have to organize voters outside of the party system to say they'd support whichever candidate campaigns on the reforms, regardless of party, so that both sides would see an electoral benefit to embracing the democratic consensus. But perhaps taking it out of politicians' hands entirely might be more effective, in the long run.
I'd also been thinking about "vote coaches" — paid local researchers who could help overwhelmed voters navigate their ballots, attend city council meetings, post their findings in real time online, so that people could tune in and tune out without feeling like they're flying blind every November. And I still think that has value at the local level, where the information gap is arguably worse than at the national level. But Landemore's proposal addresses something my idea doesn't: the fundamental problem that elected representatives, no matter how well-informed the voters who choose them are, still become captive to party incentives and donor demands the moment they take office. Better-informed voters choosing from the same broken menu is still a broken menu.
What if both ideas could coexist? Randomly selected citizen assemblies tackling the areas where national partisan politics systematically fails but coordination is important — climate, healthcare, tax policy, immigration — while elected politicians handle the more local, granular governance that actually benefits from long-term institutional knowledge. And then coaches helping everyday people process what these national and local assemblies are doing, making the deliberations accessible rather than buried in C-SPAN obscurity. The French convention's retention rate is extremely impressive and worth analyzing, but I think the real challenge isn't getting 150 people to show up, it's getting millions to trust and engage with what those 150 people produce. That's where the information layer matters a lot.
The 15% congressional approval number should haunt every defender of the status quo. We don't accept 15% satisfaction from any other institution in our lives. The fact that we shrug at it for the one institution that's supposed to represent all of us says everything about how low our expectations have fallen.
Timothy, your idea of Vote Coaches is a good one as many never really fully understand what they are really voting for in so many elections other than what little sound bites are telling them . Granted, when you have a national election where say 335 mil. folks are being asked to vote for something or someone , the message needs to be brief and poignant to catch their attention and get them to vote one way or the other, but , communicating what the issues are and explaining them to the honest listeners is so important to making the right choices in voting someone into office, in my way of thinking.
Thanks Clark! Yeah, I think it would be kinda twofold: explain everything in a way that people who want a summarized version can vote with more information than they would if they were too overwhelmed to do their own research. But then there are the people who flat out don’t really care to know how or why things work, they just want the government to function without constant cries for attention. Getting to know someone local, who is similar to you, that you can trust, might help these people completely outsource their ballot to someone who actually knows what they are talking about, and has earned trust. That would make the system a lot less vulnerable to mudslinging and political ads that currently have a lot of power in elections.
Thanks, Timothy, as what you are saying makes sense to me.
There is so much misinformation just screwing things up with many voters buying into the lies because they sound right but are really a way to garner votes without any basis of actually producing the results we all are hoping for and so, we wait patiently to see if the promises become a reality .
You impress me as one who has taken it upon yourself to see to it that our democratic republic remains strong and vibrant so that we all can participate in making it a more perfect union. We can all give our lives to that prospect by participating in the voting process that will generate a more positive outcome in sustaining what actually works and jettisoning that which doesn't work , but," if it ain't broke, don't fix it" either, right?
It's time to learn from our mistakes in letting Trump even be elected last year and turn this situation around for the better going forward by booting he and his ilk out of office and replace it with an administration that is for all Americans and not just the rich . Being 82, I hope that I live to see it for my progenies' sake ,as well as, for the rest of our country, so, let's keep up the good fight, my friend.
🫡
Several years ago Washington State convened a similar panel to consider possible measures related to climate change (I was on a standby support group). Our experience was very similar to what this post describes. The panel reached consensus on a range of measures, many of which were incorporated into legislation. A key part of this effort was that the citizens panel was explicitly advisory and did not have any actual authority. This gave them latitude to think broadly and speak candidly. All in all I think it was a successful and valuable exercise.
This makes more sense. State based and an advisory board rather than governing board (see my comment). How were members of the panel selected? Did the state reach out randomly to citizens or were people asked to volunteer?
I’m traveling so I don’t have access to my records, but as I recall we got assistance from a European organization that supports citizens democracy efforts. The panel was selected from a stratified random sample of a pool of volunteers. The stratification ensured the panel accurately represented the entire state based on multiple criteria including age, political affiliation, income, gender identity, and other factors I can’t remember. Here’s a link with more information: https://www.waclimateassembly.org/
I've been thinking how frustrated I am with representative democracy. I mean, I would rather this than tyranny or monarchy, but it still feels inadequate and messier than perhaps it's worth. I want to hear more about these ideas as well as others. I'm ready to talk about this.
The concepts in the article certainly have merit. I especially am in favor of policies that involve non-Elite Americans. The various solutions discussed here, and elsewhere, such as Constitutional amendments, multi-member House districts, ranked voting, overturn Citizens United, Citizen assemblies, tax funded elections also have merit.
Unfortunately, any discussion of a Constitutional amendment is a no go from the start. Progressives would get killed with any Constitutional Convention, or Convention of the States as Republicans own the majority of State Houses. And with the threshold of 75% of the states have to approve any amendment - neither party is going to agree to a change.
In addition, all the other proposals depend on a Congress and President to be on board, and with OUR current ultra-partisanship, now on steroids with the Great Gerrymandering of 2026, it's going to become even more difficult to pass reforms. There is only one solution - WE have to shake up the system, and change the playing field.
Until we increase the size of the House of Representatives to properly represent the interests of We the People - NOTHING changes. Congress froze the House at the 1910 level of 435 members with a new law - The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. America's population has gone from 92.5 million in 1910, to 342 million today - a 3.7 X increase, while the Federal budget has risen from $676 Million to $3.8 Trillion - and we still have only 435 of US trying to oversee 'them'? The single most important function the House is supposed to serve is that of overseeing the spending of the Federal budget - OUR hard earned tax dollars.
In effect this has allowed both parties to place a stranglehold on OUR political system and freeze out any strong 3rd party, allow Big Money to buy OUR 'local' District elections, ignore Article I, Section 2 of OUR Constitution that requires increasing the size of the House with each census.
WE can change the system by tripling the size of the House. Sounds crazy- right? More of them?
Actually it would be more of US. A possible path forward is explained at PROJECT1305.org. You can also sign the petition on Change.org with this link: https://c.org/KnLGF4xqnN
As it has been since OUR ancestors suffered through the Revolutionary War - it is still up to US
I have no problem with what I know and understand about our current way of voting .
The problem we have today, however, is with the unbridled amount of money that is pumped into the elections by the billionaire class for their picks of the folks they want to run our government over what the rest of us may want instead but invariably can't outspend the Big Dollar donors, who usually get who they want into positions of power and influence to guarantee their elections.
Solution? Why not take an equal amount from American's incomes at tax time and use it to fund the elections to where each candidate would receive the same amount to cover their election costs and level the playing field by doing so? Then, all the candidates state their intentions for running and voters elect on the basis of the promises made . Once in office they seek to work together to form a better union within our country for the betterment of all Americans.
Granted, this is a simple plan and very workable to me , but , someone will try to make it more complicated to seek some kind of advantage against the other party and that's where corruption begins , in the confusion and chaos that ensues so that cover ups can hide the deception, thus, there will need to be a mechanism to insure that everything remains above board.
Wow! This is something to think about and a way to help see that we are not stuck with what we have. Thanks for sharing!
There was an NYT article a few months ago about a "deliberative democracy" setup in some European country -- I can't seem to dig up the article at the moment but it was Denmark maybe? It's probably featured in this woman's book. Like the French convention cited here, they select citizens from across the country to deliberate on issues like housing, climate, etc. It's been in place since 2019 I think and I believe it's done continuously. They then submit their suggested reforms to lawmakers who can take them up (or not). I've been a fan of the idea of politics without politicians since I read this article. I think about it like this: if you've been politicking all your life, you have tunnel vision for politicking. If you've been consulting, you have tunnel vision for consulting. If you've been lobbying, you have tunnel vision for lobbying and so on and so forth. Sometimes (many times) issues need fresh eyes, energy, and perspective that only comes from widening the pool of people to review, assess, and address the issues. We all bring different perspectives and expertise to any given conversation... why should governance be any different?
A system of government where decisions are made by everyday people from all across the country chosen by a national lottery? Most people don't even vote. Also, has this person ever had jury duty? The difference between a national lottery and the example she gave is that those people CHOSE to be there. Just like jury duty the exemptions and conditions would be onerous - and the travel! Where is an easy location for these people to get together? The US is a lot bigger than France! Plus every state has it's own laws and regulations beyond the federal to consider. Sorry to be so negative but I cannot even begin to imagine how this would work.
Hypothetically, because of our size, this could be something adopted at the state level, and then expanded upon. Maybe this would encourage more people to vote if they thought it would make a difference in their country.
I came here to say the same thing….ummm has anyone done jury duty?! The time I served on a jury it was horrendous….as you mentioned the first obstacle is getting folks to actually do it, and then once selected/during trial it felt like no one even listened to the instructions, didn’t want to listen to each other, some just wanted to roll over just to get out of there, etc…..and that was only TWELVE people!
Good point, Jennifer, Keeping it simple is imperative ,but the question is "What is the best way to communicate with the most people across our nation?"