If we truly intend to reinvent government, why aren’t we reinventing Congress? It was designed in 1787 for a world without long distance transportation or communication. Keeping the same structure for the 1990s guarantees irresponsible legislators and irresponsible citizens. Just complaining about the way politicians and voters behave is futile. The structure needs to be changed.
Each congressional district has such diverse residents-young, old, single, married, business owners, laborers-with such conflicting priorities, that any stand a local legislator takes on a complex 20th Century issue will displease many of his or her constituents. Therefore, most legislators avoid confronting difficult issues. The 104th Congress is no exception. Its new leaders vow to cut taxes and balance the budget while spending more on defense and Social Security. Maintaining Social Security benefits at even the current level, however, will bankrupt the country in time.
As for citizens, no matter how they differ within a district, they all have to share one legislator. Therefore, few citizens can be represented for what they truly care about, and thus most see little reason to vote. Many who do vote see little reason to pay close attention to the issues. Candidates have little reason to discuss issues, much less follow through on them. The most effective strategies for winning and staying in office are to stoke anger, sling mud and make empty promises. Mudslinging dominated in the 1994 election. Surveys revealed that most voters were unaware of the Republicans’ “Contract with America.” The public voted in anger far more than on substance.
With anger and alienation the basis for voting, those in power now will become the eventual target. Republicans may undo the Democrats’ handiwork but the same fate awaits the Republicans’ efforts. This is a dangerous way to run a country-as dangerous as it would be for a business to put marketing people in charge while ignoring finance for two years, then putting finance people in charge while ignoring marketing.
By advocating term limits, a balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto, the new leaders of Congress are acknowledging that it cannot act responsibly. If those who run the institution trust it so little, how can we leave the nation’s future in its hands? A balanced budget amendment won’t help an irresponsible legislature cope with modern hazards-ethnic hatreds, nuclear proliferalion, a degraded environment, global economic interdependence.
We could place our political future on much safer ground by directly addressing the causes of Congress’s irresponsible behavior. Government could turn to proven methods of resolving conflict and making wise decisions that are already widely used in business and some areas of policymaking.
To apply these methods, Congress would have to organize itself around real priorities. Under a system of “universal representation,” every candidate for the House would identify the priorities he or she was running on. Candidates would run nationwide. Each voter would pick a representative from among all the candidates. Every legislator would then represent a coherent group of constituents who agreed on their political priorities. Congress could use a similar process internally. For each committee in the House and Senate, each member could be chosen to represent a group of legislators who agreed on their political priorities. All committees and all legislation would then reflect all of the nation’s conflicting concerns.
Universal representation would produce far better public policy. Each incumbent now faces one election challenger, whom the incumbent can beat more easily with polemics and “pork” than with wise policy. Under universal representation, however, each incumbent would face scores of electoral challengers courting his or her constituents. Pork and polemics would matter little to citizens free to vote for their most important concerns. Incumbents blaming each other for Congress’ failings would find their seats threatened by many challengers claiming they could do better. For each legislator, working with all the others to craft sound policy would be the only route to achieving the goals of his or her constitutents.
Legislators would also be forced to confront constituents who had unrealistic expectations. An incumbent who simply left such expectations in place would lose office to challengers claiming they would fulfill them. Having to cooperate with others in Congress and confront constituents with realities to stay in office, legislators would produce much sounder policy.
If constituents could freely choose what to be represented for, they, too, would take politics far more seriously. Picking the right representative from among all the candidates nationwide would be no more challenging than renting or buying a home from among thousands of places in a new city or region. A home buyer first has to decide what his or her priorities are-cost, neighborhood, number of rooms, proximity to schools or transportation, etc.-and then make trade-off decisions between one place cheaper versus one more convenient, and so on. If citizens had to weigh priorities and trade-offs to choose a representative, policymaking would be grounded in something far more solid than mudslinging and anger.
Can it happen? As a start, universal representation for House elections within each state only requires legislation, not a constitutional amendment. Citizens for Responsible Democracy is forming to promote such a change. So few people vote now, that if only 12 percent of the public decide they want a system in which they can truly be heard, they have enough voting power to unseat virtually every incumbent who opposes the necessary legislation. A large political change clearly has risks, but an 18th Century political system in a 20th Century world-soon to be a 21st Century one-is simply too dangerous to keep.
