Why not rule by jury?
Convective thought.

Fact 1: Legislatures no longer function.

Fact 2: Juries do function.

Neither fact is absolute, but I'd say it's a 10/90 proportion. Legislatures reach correct decisions 10% of the time, juries 90%.

Therefore: Replace legislatures with a series of short-term juries, called into session for each question that needs to be decided.

Parcel out the budget and the laws requested by the governor into pieces that can be decided in a week. Run the juries more or less normally, with two exceptions. EXCEPTION 1: No lawyers can exclude anyone. Purely mechanical selection of 12 qualified voters, who don't know in advance which question they'll be working on. EXCEPTION 2: No lawyers will present facts; the jurors will be allowed to find facts on their own via books or Net. Guard against intimidation.

Jurors do not have a CAREER in politics, and they emphatically DO NOT WANT to be re-elected.

If the governor tries to pull tricks like omnibus bills or poison pills, the jurors WILL spot them and reject the proposal entirely. A hung jury means an abolished department. Normally governors and presidents can't afford to abolish anything. In the rare case where the executive WANTS to abolish a department, he can do it by presenting the jury with a calculated 'hang'. This is a beautiful result but won't happen often.

Above all: The decision of each jury SHALL BE OBEYED. No appeals. If some Federal black-robed satan tries to overturn the decision, the state will firmly defend its laws, including nullification and armed secession and assassination when needed.

This is crucial. If you want people to behave responsibly, you need to reward and respect responsibility. When people see their decisions constantly overturned by tyrants, they lose the desire to be civilized.

This obviously leaves out a whole bunch of necessary details, but maybe the concept will ping a more sophisticated idea from a better thinker.

Labels: Zero Problems

  ¶ 2:47 AM