Let’s think about our trial system, and how it might apply to our democracy itself.
In a criminal trial, there is the “prosecution,” made up of advocates for proving the defendant is guilty, and the “defense,” made up of advocates for proving the defendant is not guilty. These advocates argue their sides of the case, presenting evidence as available to support their stances.
It then goes to the jury, twelve unbiased individuals tasked with weighing the evidence and seeking the best, most fair outcome. The idea is the jury can balance and weigh the arguments pro and con, debate those arguments, and try to reach a consensus on guilty or not, based on the evidence.
Imagine if you will though, that instead of twelve random individuals, each side got to place six advocates. So in the jury room there are six jurors aligned with the prosecution and six with the defense. How would that go? A hung jury.
What if then only a simply majority, rather than a unanimous decision, could decide the case? Well with our six and six, still a hung jury. What’s more, because the jurors are all advocates, they would not put much weight on the evidence provided in the trial.
What if the prosecution had seven members and the other side five? We’d get guilty verdicts all the time. And if the defense had seven? Nobody would ever be found guilty.
Imagine civil trials where each side could “buy” jurors. This is why jury tampering is such a serious crime.
So no, we wouldn’t want to have juries filled with advocates for one side or the other. That would be no way to get a fair and reasoned verdict for any particular case.
Do you see where I’m going with this? The laws of our land are made in Congress. Who makes up Congress? Advocates. Advocates with allegiances to one or the other of our two political parties. This has no better chance of working well than trying to get a fair verdict from jury of advocates.
Why didn’t the founders think of this? They knew you needed jurors for fair trials, but didn’t think elected congress people would be a problem?
Well they hadn’t counted on the rise of political parties. And money being spent to get advocates for some position elected.
Aaron Burr, in the earliest days of our democracy, saw the gain to be had by actively electioneering to get a position he could then use for his personal gain. Shortly thereafter we got the first political parties organized to get advocates for (does this sound familiar) larger or smaller federal government.
Why are such vast sums of money being spent on political campaigns? Because the results are worth it..
Is there a better way? Can this be fixed at this late stage of the game?
Yes. Replacing Congress with a random selection of unelected individuals would be great, but that’s not practical. What is practical is something called a Citizen’s Assembly (CA). Like a jury, the individuals in a CA are selected to reach a decision on a specific issue. They are selected at random, just like a jury. After reaching a decision on an issue, the CA is disbanded.
Congress, or any legislature at any level of our society, could convene a CA to decide on, say, Alaskan oil drilling, or whether to fund a new fire station in town. The advocates would make presentations, experts would be brought in, evidence would be gathered, and the CA would deliberate and make a recommendation. The legislative body could then make the recommendation law.
