Common Sense in Politics?

In Common Sense— often hailed as prodding America toward the path to independence—Thomas Paine wrote that "a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right." While Paine was writing in regards to British monarchy, have his words since become applicable to the government which replaced it?

The most recent census records show that while Caucasians are 69% of the US population, they are represented by 86% of the combined House and Senate. Inversely, all minorities in the United States are underrepresented by 30% on average of their national population.

While statistics may show a misrepresentation of ethnicity within the government, the truest gap in representation is in socioeconomic class. The United States government is failing its citizens in its most fundamental purpose: representation of its citizenry.

Few Americans question the idea of democracy—but that's not the same as questioning if the American government is democratic. When an elite cabal of people establish themselves as a ruling class, leaving little to no room for the common civic-minded citizen in government—are we really any better off than we were as colonists under a monarchy?

Every citizen of this country believes blindly in its leadership, while little by little they are stripped of class mobility and basic freedoms. In order for us to understand what we are losing, it's time to reacquaint ourselves with the term democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy [di-mok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

[Origin: 1525–35; < MF démocratie < LL démocratia < Gk démokratía popular government, equiv. to démo- DEMO- + -kratia -CRACY]

The first definition causes me the most pause—particularly the use of the term “free.” Any electoral system is going to be organized for the benefit of the government hosting it, that is given—but at what point do you consider yourself no longer free, but coerced?

Is being given a limited number of choices being free to choose? Granted, structure is necessary for elections in order to facilitate the process, but when is it no longer structure but guidance? If you are asked to choose between death by firing squad or death by lethal injection, do you believe you've been given free choice to do as you please?

As you can see, the term democracy is fairly abstract. If you prefer the second definition, then yes—the United States is a democracy because, by self-definition, the United States is a democracy. The cause and effect in this suggestion is a bit to lenient for me. If we simply are because we say so, we could continue to call ourselves a democracy while we move ever closer to federal socialism, federal despotism, or some other hybridized type of government.

Some would argue, with merit, that we have already begun making these steps. As long as the representational electoral system is in place, regardless of the choices we're given or how we limit those who may offer themselves as candidates, we claim to remain a democracy—altering the definition by proxy.

The question ultimately comes down to choice. The choices we are given to vote upon, by and large, originate within the government. There do exist “citizen sponsored ballot initiatives,” but those are applicable only within state and local government—and very much the exception, rather than the rule. The death blow to citizen sponsored ballot initiatives is that their power is effectively limited by the federal government's supercedence of state law.

In order to re-empower the masses in their self-governance, I'd like to tentatively suggest a change within the American government from a “representational” democracy to a new form of allotted democracy: wherein citizens are chosen at random to participate in local government. Individuals with proven proclivity and aptitude would then be entered into the pool of candidates for popular election into higher government offices.

A lot of people are going to have issue with this idea. At the onset, it sounds ridiculous. I'm aware of that. However, if you step back and examine the idea on its merits, you'll find that there truly are justifiable advantages to this type of government.

In simplest terms, I would like to see a government run by lottery—much like Jury Duty. Turning “public service” into an actual public service would allow for a true representation of all different groups within the country. This would allow for the immediate implementation of policies and procedures that are commonly wished for, but legislated against—for corporate interest reasons.

This policy could start with local assemblies by open lottery, and as the level of government got higher, requiring more experience, would be open only to those who had previously served – with good public and peer reviews.

While it would take a lot of fine-tuning to create a workable system based on these principles, the outcome would be the effective elimination of the age-old adage “anyone who wants to be in government probably shouldn't [due to personal interest].” This new government system would be important in re-establishing the true nature of our democracy, ensuring the true and accurate representation of its citizenry.

I can see the argument now: “Average people do not have the knowledge or skill-set to run a successful government.” This attitude is created and enforced by the layers of built-in redundancy in the current bureaucratic system. These complications are not only unnecessary, but costly to the American public. Their only purpose is the enforcement of a continued “politician class,” which requires specialized training and political connections.

By enacting an allotted democracy, we could change the entire state of public affairs—simplifying government, streamlining bureaucracy—allowing the common person to not only have an actual voice in politics, but also a true understanding of the application of their taxes.

It may seem a bit sensational to some—but to me, it’s common sense.