A detail of Howard Chandler Christy's 1940 "Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States." Is it time to upgrade our democracy?

By Star-Ledger staff

NJ Advance Media partnered with Rutgers University-New Brunswick to invite some of America’s leading political philosophers to share their ideas for reforming – or even transforming – American government.

We asked political scholars Ashley Koning, Elizabeth C. Matto and John Weingart from Rutgers' Eagleton Institute of Politics to analyze those ideas and present positive aspects and reservations for each.

Read more about this project at nj.com/democracy-upgraded

Don't Edit

ELECTION BY LOTTERY

We should instead have randomly-chosen citizens selected to serve on single-issue legislatures, each covering specific areas such as immigration, transportation, education, agriculture and so on. There would be no elected president. The executive functions would be covered partly by single-issue legislative bodies, partly by executive agencies made up of officials who were appointed and screened by randomly-chosen citizens. — Alexander Guerrero, Rutgers University

Don't Edit

Why won’t this work?

Koning: Be careful what you wish for. We as a country may endlessly complain about an elite ruling class and rich politicians gaming the electoral system, but moving to the completely other end of the spectrum is not necessarily the answer, either. Some individuals may not want or are simply not equipped with the right skill set to serve. Instead, we should encourage those with more diverse backgrounds – both culturally and professionally – to run for office.

Matto: Replacing elections with a "lottocracy" to address American democracy's current ills is the political version of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Although its application is constantly evolving, the Constitution supplies us with an effective political system. The real problem lies in the ways in which we've perverted it. Concerns with the influence of moneyed interests or media elites are best addressed by reforming our electoral system, not abolishing it. American is a representative, not a direct democracy; a "lottocracy" undermines this core tenet.

Weingart: For one thing, isolating single issues to be addressed independent of others would lead to chaos. How could a "transportation legislature" make decisions without consideration of impacts on farmland which presumably under this proposal would be handled by the "agriculture legislature?" For another, the proposer argues that "people don't know enough about the political issues or what our elected officials are doing…," but expects some of those people drawn at random to be able to tackle complex public policy issues. I agree that "we should think more creatively about how we might work together," but, at least as briefly described here, this idea seems monumentally flawed.

Don't Edit

Why will this work?

Koning: At the heart of this proposal is the idea of participatory democracy, leaning more toward the delegate than trustee model of representation. Engaging the average citizen and amplifying their voice in the political process should always be encouraged – whether through running for office, participating in a town hall, voting, or expressing one's views on important policies in a poll. An active citizenry has a big impact on who gets elected and what gets decided.

Matto: This proposal promises to instill a sense of ownership among citizens in the processes of politics. From participatory budgeting to referenda, more states are crafting methods to engage citizens. The inclination to play a part in democracy is innate in America's psyche. As Tocqueville observed, Americans possess a natural "civic spirit," and "to take a hand in the government of society. . . is the only pleasure he knows". This proposal will help Americans recapture their propensity to be active democratic participants.

Weingart: The most readily available realization of an idea like this is the American jury system. By virtually all accounts, it is successful in requiring randomly-selected citizens to drop whatever else they are doing and spend days, weeks or occasionally months deliberating about legal matters that previously, in most cases, were totally unfamiliar to them, and to arrive at decisions objective analysts generally consider wise. Maybe something in the direction of this idea could grow from assessment and expansion of the jury system.

Don't Edit

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY

This model – using mini-publics for a constant rotation of ordinary citizens in and out of our political structures, and digital tools to maintain open communication flows between the people and their representatives – would bypass the bottlenecks created by elections and party structures. — Hélène Landemore

Don't Edit

Don't Edit

Why won’t this work?

Koning: This proposal is the definition of deliberative democracy. The problem is, however, that citizens are limited information processors. We have lives, jobs, families, and obligations; it takes a lot of cognitive effort, time, and money to take something like this on and introduces a very new definition of citizenship – one which may not be the best fit for each and every citizen's skill level or interest.

Matto: Although much of the work of representative bodies is to craft solutions to public problems, these bodies also play a purely political role - facilitating the allocation of power. As "Federalist Paper #10" asserts, a large populace composed of varied and conflicting interests spurs competition for power or influence among these interests. The value of a representative democracy is that these passions can be filtered and compromises struck, thereby, moving the nation closer to securing the common good.

Weingart: Most of the decisions we entrust to government are on complex questions with possible answers that require tradeoffs, considerations of options and nuance, and compromise. While it is easy to make fun of individual elected officials, there is no reason to think that randomly selected panels could pick up the knowledge and perspective sufficiently quickly to make wise decisions. The selection process sounds similar to the ways in which survey researchers identify representative samples. If done well, the resulting polls can give good snapshots of what people are thinking on basic questions, but the inherent limitations on question design would render them useless for policy-making.

Don't Edit

Why will this work?

Koning: This proposal brings to mind the very real and frequently studied process of deliberative polling, where ordinary citizens are brought together to be surveyed about and deliberate on important issues. Polls, in general, can be used as a way to inform and educate both the public and policymakers, amplifying citizens' voices in a representative way and making government more democratic and responsive. For example, polling has driven policy change on issues like same-sex marriage in recent years.

Matto: "Open mini-publics" offer a formalized mechanism or route of communication and influence at time when traditional routes seem ineffective. As the grassroots qualities of interest groups have eroded, the voices of large bodies of citizens have been muted. By formally involving random groups of "mini-publics" in the political process, their concerns will find a place on the public agenda.

Weingart: This could be a way to not only interest more people in politics and government but to also help the participants - and by extension their friends and relatives - understand how hard it can be. While it wouldn't work for actual government, perhaps this could be a way to gain more attention for information and views that may be being overlooked by legislators, and to generate fresh ideas that could help break the impasses holding up progress on addressing so many issues.

Don't Edit

PROPORTIONAL VOTING

Under proportional voting, a party that gets X percent of the votes will get X percent of the seats – and locations are represented by multiple members from different parties, rather than one winning candidate claiming a mandate. — Jason Brennan, Georgetown University

Don't Edit

Why won’t this work?

Koning: It would be a near impossibility to change the two-party system. It is too ingrained in American politics, and try as they might, third party candidates continue to fail to garner enough votes on Election Day. Partisan identification has furthermore become an all-consuming social identity. Republicans and Democrats are further apart on political values now more than ever, and surveys have shown party members' increasing disdain for the opposing side – both politically and personally.

Matto: Since the First Party System of the 1790s, American politics has been dominated by a two-party system. Two-party politics is a habit the American body politic is unlikely to give up. Although the nation's party system fuels the current state of mutual antipathy, there are a host of reforms worth pursuing, from campaign finance to gerrymandering, that promise to foster compromise without butting against over 200 years of ingrained political habit.

Weingart: Theoretically, this change could reduce political polarization as Brennan notes although it doesn't seem as though the European countries that employ it currently are basking in good will and harmony. The more serious potential drawback of the proposal to me is that it could make it much more difficult for a government to pull together a coalition to create positive change. Also, I think it is unreasonable to expect this change, or any change, to remove politicians' interest in their own continued tenure in office.

Don't Edit

Why will this work?

Koning: There has been sustained public support in the 21st century for introducing a third major political party, and horserace polling has increasingly found sizable numbers siding with third party candidates. Likewise, studies have shown citizens' desire for and high satisfaction with ranked-choice voting. Given increasing hyper-partisanship and two presidential elections in the past two decades where the electoral and popular vote have diverged, public opinion indicates that citizens may be ready for a change.

Matto: It will appeal to a growing portion of the electorate: Millennials and post-Millennials. Known as Duverger's Law, "winner-take-all" elections in single-member districts foster two-party systems. This proposal promises a system that rewards voters' support for third parties. Young adults possess a driving desire for options and for their actions to reflect their values. They also resist institutional loyalty. A system that offers a meaningful range of political choices stands to motivate youth engagement in ways two-party systems don't.

Weingart: It's a very interesting idea and could have the effects Brennan suggests. Candidates could not ignore the views of any sizable number of constituents because they might need their votes to gain and retain office, and they might have to compromise with other parties to make a difference. While it is hard to imagine this change gaining sufficient support to be implemented, it does raise interesting questions about the impact on our two-party, winner-take-all system, and the creation of more districts that are more competitive where representatives might be more inclined to reconsider their views and perhaps compromise.

Don't Edit

Don't Edit

DIRECT DEMOCRACY



A regularly scheduled constitutional convention is like an annual doctor's checkup in that it would allow us to genuinely examine the Constitution's strengths and weaknesses, and provide for early detection of problems, rather than waiting for serious illness. — Sanford Levinson, University of Texas Law School

Don't Edit

Why won’t this work?

Koning: There are too many unknowns in holding a constitutional convention that could have potentially dangerous consequences. The Constitution establishes little in terms of rules for a convention, allowing for delegates to proceed with little to no state or federal control. Delegates, beholden to no one, can break and redefine rules, as well as be swayed by special interests who see a convention as a prime opportunity to influence policy.

Matto: For a constitutional convention to work, a shared understanding of democratic norms and principles and a shared willingness to engage in honest but productive discussions are required. Neither of these conditions are in place today. Instead, we must dedicate ourselves to reinvigorating our civic education system: fostering in next generations an understanding of democratic ideals, a facility with the processes of political engagement, and a willingness to engage with others to solve public problems in such a way that the spirit of the Constitution is brought to life.

Weingart: A concern expressed about this type of proposal in the past has been that the modern-day public participating in such an endeavor might well be less protective of civil rights than were the Constitutional fathers. In addition, at least as long as the Citizens United decision stands, it would be difficult to keep the people who control massive amounts of wealth from disproportionately directing the selection of delegates, issues to consider and conclusions to adopt.

Don't Edit

Why will this work?

Koning: Whether or not the Constitution is a living document has fostered endless debate, but changing times have shown the vital need for amendments, reinterpretation, and possibly even revision. This proposal astutely points to state-level initiative and referendum models; states are an important part of federalism and can pave the way for nationwide change. And while perhaps we do not need regular revolutions, as Thomas Jefferson suggested, we do need to listen to the people more.

Matto: There's something appealing about a "constitutional checkup". The idea is particularly appealing given current concerns about the erosion of core democratic ideals and practices. Much of the power of the judiciary rests in perceptions of its legitimacy - the same could be said of the Constitution. If Amendments are rarely invoked or the process of Amendment is rarely sought because success seems unlikely, the Constitution loses its power as a guidepost. Perhaps an occasional constitutional convention offers a way to shore up its legitimacy.

Weingart: At the present moment, people on all sides of the early 21st century political divides seem despondent about the future of US democracy. It is hard to imagine what could happen in 2020, 2024, 2028 and whether these elections will restore some sense of common purpose and effective governance. Twenty years ago, I would have opposed the idea, but today a proposal to make easier the path to occasional new constitutional conventions seems refreshing and like a ray of hope for a troubled country.

Don't Edit

BASIC INCOME



The suffering of America's poor puts democracy at risk. People struggling to make ends meet in rust belt and rural communities are fed up and either don't vote, or can fall prey to would-be autocrats who promise to end their suffering by getting tough on crime or closing borders. A guaranteed basic income – a government-financed unconditional cash allowance for poor people – is an investment we can afford and should make to protect our democracy. — Derrick Darby, University of Michigan

Don't Edit

Why won’t this work?

Koning: The big question is, who pays for all of this? Providing a universal basic income to every individual in the United States would be quite a large expenditure – most likely larger than the cost for existing social welfare programs. Any tax increase or new taxes meant to cover this would be met with resistance (especially from New Jerseyans). In a country built on individualism, such unprecedented assistance would be a hard sell.

Matto: Although deeply flawed, the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" narrative runs deep in American culture. A core element of the nation's ethos is that hard work results in success (financial and otherwise) and that financial support from the government undercuts the incentive to put forth the initiative to get ahead. If resistance to recent attempts to raise the minimum wage are any guide, it's unlikely that calls for a "guaranteed basic income" will meet with success.

Weingart: While I assume it is not intended, this reads as if the motivation is more to take from the undeserving wealthy than to really help people who are poor. In any case, the biggest obstacle to this proposal is that the idea is likely to be very difficult to explain in a way that would gain it sufficiently wide public support to be implemented.

Don't Edit

Don't Edit

Why will this work?

Koning: A universal basic income (UBI) is already a reality in some places – like Alaska, as well as in both Oakland and Stockton, California. Leaders in tech and on both sides of the political aisle have expressed support for it. Public opinion – though somewhat mixed – is also mostly positive about it. And some studies have shown it can be successful, providing opportunity to all – especially those who need it most. Researchers should continue exploring its impact through case studies and experiments.

Matto: From voting to attending public meetings, large segments of the population don't participate in activities intrinsic to a healthy democracy. Although a number of factors influence political participation, income level consistently has been shown to be a determinant of voting. There is growing interest in easing the burdens associated with political participation. This mood might pave the way for support for initiatives like "guaranteed basic income" that make democratic participation more widely accessible.

Weingart: This idea seems counterintuitive to many people when first presented but it has gained surprising support across the political spectrum including, for example, from President Richard Nixon almost 50 years ago. As the psychologist Abe Maslow argued, people have a hierarchy of needs and only if their basic needs are met can they strive to help improve the lives of others, etc. If the economic and psychological basis of this proposal can be clearly and persuasively articulated, in addition to the social justice it would represent, perhaps it could be adopted in which case it would likely result in massive positive change.

Don't Edit

OUR PANELISTS

Ashley Koning is an assistant research professor at the Eagleton Institute of Politics and the director of the institute's Center for Public Interest Polling, the oldest statewide university-based survey research center in the country. She oversees the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and has spearheaded the center's internship program, omnibus survey and other innovations.

Elizabeth C. Matto is an associate research professor at Eagleton and the director of the institute's Center for Youth Political Participation. She leads research, educational and public service efforts designed to celebrate and support the political learning of high school and college students, and civic action among young adults, including those holding and running for office.

John Weingart has been the associate director of Eagleton since 2000. He directs the institute's Center on the American Governor and the Arthur J. Holland Ethics in Government Program. He also oversees the graduate Eagleton fellowship program and helps lead the undergraduate associates program in which he teaches the capstone course.