DEMARCHY: A SOLUTION FOR MOUSELAND

This story has been told before, I've been given to understand, by one Claire Gillis in the 1960s, and repeated by Tommy Douglas. It's a parable that remains applicable. I won't copy it in whole, but the gist of it is this: Once, there was a nation called Mouseland, where millions of mice lived in a democracy. Every year they went to the polls, and voted for one of their two political parties: The White Cat party, or the Black Cat party. If the fat White Cat in charge had been terrorizing the mice this year, then next year they would invariably vote in a fat Black Cat, and vice versa. All the while, the cats making laws to the benefit of cats and the harm of the mice, and sharing their kills behind the mice's backs. One day, a mouse gets up onto a podium, and proclaims to the other mice, "Let's elect a mouse instead of a fat hungry cat!". He is promptly labeled a communist by both parties and thrown in a hole where he is later fished out and eaten by a cat.

It's a gruesome and familiar tale, and by now you have surely discerned that I am not really talking about cats and mice. Allow me to put it more bluntly, and to present a solution.

America has a problem. You've noticed this. The nature of the problem, with some inspection, is clear:

Career politicians.

Campaign funding is employed by career politicians to remain in power. Bipartisan deadlocks are used by career politicians to maintain power while blaming the other side. It's in their interest to ensure, even, that both parties are loathsome, to each keep the constituents of the other party afraid. This is a key component, too, in continuing the corruption. One dares not vote for an honest governor, for fear that the Other Party will win.

This is the only way they can keep their power: To lock honest people out and use money that is not their own, while elites pour cash into both sides' coffers to ensure that they own whoever wins, no matter who wins.

 

This even manifests on state scales. City scales. Elections are bought and sold, and who represents the people better is immaterial.

American democracy is no longer, as Abraham Lincoln put it, government by the people, and because of that, it isn't government for the people.

 

This is an old and pervasive problem - whether in antiquity, when royals held power, or later nobles; the modern era, with its political class and Rockefellers, Musks and Bezoses; or the various attempts in between at trying something new, like Russia and Cuba; they all had the fatal flaw of an inner circle controlling policy and resources, and those outside of it left to fend for themselves. Fat, hungry cats gorging on mice, while they take every measure to see that the mice stay helpless.

 

"Well, it's the best thing available, isn't it? We've always had this problem. That's just a flaw we have to accept, right?"

It's really not! That's a very easy mistake to make - but there is a better way to ensure government by and for the people. A better way to create democratic representation.

It's ensuring that whoever governs is one of the people. Not just voting in a man of the people, but establishing a system whereby the people will always overwhelmingly control government. This can be done with selection by lot, which over time will result in the will of the populace holding the power of government. Consider a lottery drum: The only way it will dispense an 8 more often than a 7 is if there are more 8s than 7s in the drum to begin with, and so it will be selecting the people.

I use this analogy intentionally, because a revolving drum lottery, with the emitted ball returned after recording, is exceptionally hard to rig.

And who'd be better at making just, reasonable, clear laws - a dozen lawyers? Or a variety - one lawyer, one doctor, one accountant, a few grocers, some restaurateurs, and a truck driver?

This is called "demarchy" - kingship of the people.

It has both historical and modern precedent. Athens used it - and the issues Athens had are largely corrected by America's constitutional system. In fact, this is what Athens called "democracy". The system we use in America, Athenians called "oligarchy", and it has developed into "aristocracy", rule by a inner circle of elites. But we've been calling it "democracy" for so long, we've got another name for true democracy now. Even in modern day, America uses selection by lot - the demarchic process - to select jurors; we don't vote on them, that would be absurd. How would that turn out if there were two defendants in a case, or two plaintiffs? Instead, those governed by the jury have only the option to challenge those they think unable to do a juror's duty.

This would restore the voice of the working class, and eliminate the problem of the political inner circle for good. Not only is today's ruler going to be out next term with near certainty, but the next one, if not you, will probably be someone who lives a life like yours, knows troubles like yours, and more or less thinks like you.

 

"Wouldn't that involve making a great huge mess? And I think there are problems with it."

The mess is unnecessary. Most of the existing structures should be left in place. The three branch system is actually very effective when all three branches aren't controlled with money and powerlust. We would still have the exact same structure - two senators from every state, representatives according to population, and on the state level, the allocation of the legislature would remain. But it would eliminate the motives for such measures as gerrymandering and expensive, deceptive political campaigns.

Now, as for those problems.

 

"Isn't it impossible to do this?"

I'll be covering this in greater detail later - and, to be sure, it will be difficult. But the important thing is that there is never any point in not trying. To just lie down and accept what the political class has been shoving down our throats is tantamount to helping them do it to others. It has already been said, after all, that the only thing evil requires to triumph is that good people do nothing.

 

"What if a bad actor gets selected?"

For this reason, it'll be necessary to split each elected - now selected - office into a council of three that can only act unanimously. This way, the worst thing a bad actor can do is force an abstain vote. Saboteurs, morons and bigots will be silenced preemptively in this way, and level heads will prevail. The sole exception to this would be judges - their duties are already designed this way, except when they are required to make snap decisions.

 

"Won't that just mean multiplying the numbers of politicians? And wouldn't that slow the process even further?"

That is an easy misunderstanding. But each of these people isn't going to be running for a second term - only if they get selected again, which is terribly unlikely. They aren't politicians at all. They're ordinary people, like you or me, who have been charged with carrying out the duties of ruling for a term.

This would eliminate the political class entirely, and once completed, the whole of America would have not a single politician throughout.

As far as slowing the system down - consider why the system is as slow as it is now. Politicians act in ways that benefit the party, and use the other party as an excuse to accomplish nothing, to better serve the patrons who bought them the election in the first place. Do away with this obstruction, and the process will accelerate dramatically. This does add more parts, but they are parts that work, and that will make all the difference.

 

"But what if three bad actors end up on the same council?"

Then all three of them can only control a single vote, and they could only swing the most evenly divided of votes. And when they are discussing the welfare of the nation, rather than the welfare of the party, you may be assured most votes will be a 70-80% majority, one way or the other!

 

"Well, what if they don't know what they're doing?"

In addition to this issue being controlled by the tripartite voting seat, the selected persons must be subjected to a confirmation, at the same time as an ordinary election. Notorious bigots and imbeciles may then be excluded. To give maximal time for popular research, and minimal time for corruption by way of campaign and campaign contributions, the names should be released at close of business on the Friday before the election. That way, the people will have three and a half days to do their research, while would-be campaign contributors have only a day to foul the process.

This also provides further safeguard against bad actors.

 

"But this is a job nobody honest wants to do. Won't they try to get out of it?"

Yes, the best people for the job will be people who don't want to do it. They have a duty to discharge. Think of it as being called to serve on a jury, only much better compensated. This sounds unpleasant at first, but if it is open to resignation, the government would not be representative of the people at large, but instead, only the people who want to be in charge. That is what we have now. It isn't great.

Some people may try to get out of this duty by getting themselves impeached or expelled. Malfeasance in office & dereliction language would still need codified for this reason. Such intentional misconduct must demand a sentence of confinement or community service, and for a duration about twice the term of the office so derelicted. That way, the fastest way to stop being a senator is to be a good senator.

 

"And accountability? If they miscarry their duty to benefit themselves personally?"

That was why I mentioned malfeasance above. This will hold officeholders accountable.

 

"What about rule by consent? Isn't that necessary for legitimate rule?"

The confirmations on election day I mentioned earlier also take care of this. Confirming or failing to disconfirm constitutes consent to rulership, making the confirmed person a morally legitimate governor.

 

"Well, this seems hard to implement, doesn't it? One would think it a pipe dream. People would have to run for office, even federal offices."

It sure seems that way, but you'll find many states don't require officeholders in order to change constitutions; it can be done by petition. And state legislatures can amend and ratify the U. S. constitution! So once enough states get on board for this, people instead of politicians will be in control of government.

Even in those states where only politicians may decide the constitution: on the state level, legislators do still have some of their humanity left, and respond to gadflying. In addition, many of these states require that constitutional conventions be put to a vote every so many years.

The first step is to share this page with everyone you know. If everyone in America just reads this page, we have already won. If everyone in your state just reads this page, you have already won.

I've compiled state by state information below. Click your state to find out what it takes for YOU to end corruption and resurrect the American tradition of liberty!

 

Alabama -- Alaska -- Arizona -- Arkansas -- California -- Colorado -- Connecticut -- Delaware -- Florida -- Georgia -- Hawaii -- Idaho -- Illinois -- Indiana -- Iowa -- Kansas -- Kentucky -- Louisiana -- Maine -- Maryland -- Massachusetts -- Michigan -- Minnesota -- Mississippi -- Missouri -- Montana -- Nebraska -- Nevada -- New Hampshire -- New Jersey -- New Mexico -- New York -- North Carolina -- North Dakota -- Ohio -- Oklahoma -- Oregon -- Pennsylvania -- Rhode Island -- South Carolina -- South Dakota -- Tennessee -- Texas -- Utah -- Vermont -- Virginia -- Washington -- West Virginia -- Wisconsin -- Wyoming