Should Congress members be chosen at random much like Jury Duty (see details)?

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:18:57 -0400

Congress is full of lifetime members who have served decades who make way too much money making decisions that only benefit themselves. Imagine having a random system that selects Americans by SS number to serve in Congress for XX months. They get paid well, actually work full days, and are not corrupt. The system is blind to who is chosen with the exception of criminal backgrounds. Or, what if Americans could OPT IN to a selection pool, and the system chose at random, only those who wanted to be selected? Thoughts?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 3:21 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:21:01 -0400

ENS Private RallyPoint Member - No!!! Because we want the best and the brightest among us to make it possible to cooperate together in solving the most serious problems facing our country. Take a look at American Jury Pools for the kind of people selected by random lot . . . then ask again. While there are many difficulties and inefficiencies in our multilateral form of government . . . the purpose of our elections is to ensure the long term representation of the best interests of our people. For this purpose we need to have people who are great thinkers, problem solvers, truth seekers, negotiators, and planners . . . who can both write well and budget well . . . and who are socially, intellectually, and emotionally prepared to not only propose the best possible solutions but to persuade others to ensure these solutions are implemented. This is the essence of representative government . . . instead of government solely inherited from God . . . the government of the rich . . . or the government of the totalitarian dictator / president intent on merely lining his own pockets . . . irrespective of the damage and the costs his policies incur. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 3:29 PM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:29:19 -0400

I forgot to mention you in the original post:

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 3:30 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:30:43 -0400

ENS Private RallyPoint Member I grew up in a military family, both of my parents served. Yes my mom wore combat boots.

I have always been told that the US military is in the top 10% of the population. Like many I have seen some that TGIF meant toes go in first when putting on boots. I found it hard to believe this seemingly incredible claim. THEN, I got out to the private sector, OMG they were right. The military is in fact the top 10% of the population. I would cringe to think about how screwed up the country would be if the congress were filled by a lottery system. Idiocracy would be too high brow for some of them.

Response by SSG Ray Elliott made Aug 12 at 2016 3:35 PM

SSG Ray Elliott — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:35:13 -0400

I would like not to leave this important function up to chance. I do think term limits, and campaign finance reform would go a long way towards making Congress functional.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Aug 12 at 2016 3:41 PM

LTC Stephen C. — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:41:43 -0400

ENS Private RallyPoint Member, a random selection is directly counter to Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution which describes how the U.S. Congress is organized and further describes how the various Senators and Representatives will be elected by each state. Without these elections, the peoples of the various states would not be truly represented. It's fundamental to our way of life. 1LT Sandy Annala COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen F.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 12 at 2016 3:45 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:45:07 -0400

Assuming that they are screened by voir dire like jury members, that might be a reasonable solution. If the public agrees to the process.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Aug 12 at 2016 3:53 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:53:44 -0400

If you seen a typical jury pool recently and listened to their inane chatter, you'd already know the answer. It's the classic Walter's "300 million sperm and those got through" shtick. Yes I'm getting older but it seems the country is getting dumber. We're dumb enough on the Hill without stacking the odds further.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Aug 12 at 2016 4:02 PM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:02:26 -0400

ENS Private RallyPoint Member I have to agree with LTC Stephen C. on how the constitution is set to elect these individuals, but I do agree that their should be maximum term limits. Some are already set by the election process and the length of each term. I would recommend that after a certian number of years they can't go up for re-election - just a thought! I do agree also that there is way too much corruption and behind the scenes dealings that don't benefit the public overall, but some of the politicians!

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 4:07 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:07:52 -0400

As obscene as it is to have those career politicians in office, they are there because their (idiot) electorate votes them in to vote and act in accordance with the the platform they support. To do so would be contrary to our Republic which is also why our Republic is doomed.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 12 at 2016 4:16 PM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:16:07 -0400

Absolutely not! Though as COL Mikel J. Burroughs suggested, Senate DOES need term limits!

Check out this video on jury duty, and this is how I see it working:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmSDRra7wUk

Jury Duty | Sebastian Maniscalco: What's Wrong With People?

"What's Wrong With People?" is now available on Amazon! http://amzn.to/1zIjwUx Check out my upcoming tour dates at http://sebastianlive.com/ Follow me on Twi...

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 12 at 2016 4:30 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:30:12 -0400

Hmmm. Tempting. Very tempting. This would save a lot of time, money, and agony, and I doubt we would get any worse than what we've been getting.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 4:46 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:46:41 -0400

I've actually posted that on this site somewhere. The only caveat is that the "jurists" still need to be chosen/elected by peers and they would have to be eligible as stated by law; the correct age, law abiding, and productive citizens.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Aug 12 at 2016 5:01 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 17:01:29 -0400

ENS Private RallyPoint Member After retiring as a Los Angeles County, (CA), Public Defender, a friend of mine was still amazed at how a jury could arrive at what he felt were absolutely correct decisions!

Juries are a mixture of citizens, their collective wisdom is the sum of all of them.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 6:19 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 18:19:09 -0400

Good God no!

Response by PO3 David Fries made Aug 12 at 2016 8:02 PM

PO3 David Fries — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 20:02:17 -0400

Negative Ghost Rider, the pattern is full.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Aug 12 at 2016 8:57 PM

SFC Joseph Weber — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 20:57:27 -0400

No.

Response by Capt Chris McVeigh made Aug 13 at 2016 12:36 AM

Capt Chris McVeigh — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 00:36:07 -0400

I think a selection process is still valid and a random one would be pretty terrible. That being said, I think our current one needs significant reform as it places way to much emphasis on fundraising and campaigning.

Response by SGM Joel Cook made Aug 13 at 2016 12:52 AM

SGM Joel Cook — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 00:52:33 -0400

You have got to be kidding. I did jury duty twice, about 100 people showed up for four juries of 12 people. Who showed up? Felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens and some quality people, out of 100 folks they barely got the 52 perspective jurors and alternate jurors they needed. Then the DA office and defense attorneys interviewed these 52 and got rid of two more with preconceived opinions of guilt or innocence. If we were stupid enough to select politicians like this who would do the interviews? Corrupt government officials? Yup back to the drawing board with this idea, think on it for a full five minutes I am sure you can get a better idea.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Aug 13 at 2016 12:59 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 00:59:55 -0400

No, because in theory we want the best we can get. The problem is "homesteading". Term limits need to be set so only two terms can be served. Health care needs to be "Tricare", and retirement needs to be payments into Social Security - just like the rest of us.

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made Aug 13 at 2016 10:56 AM

CSM Thomas McGarry — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:56:47 -0400

I've said it before and will say it again-We need term limits for all!!

Response by SSG Richard Hackwith made Aug 13 at 2016 6:09 PM

SSG Richard Hackwith — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 18:09:01 -0400

Up until 1913, US senators were elected by the the state legislatures. Then it was realized that the senators did not have the best interest of the people at heart. They were serving the interests of the state politicians that elected them, and for a six year term at that and not answerable to the people . Compared the representatives with a two year term elected by the people.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2016 12:42 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Aug 2016 00:42:46 -0400

If humans are involved, corruption is just a matter of time. Having seen and worked with juries throughout my career in law enforcement, they are not always selected based upon their individual or collective high IQs!!!

Response by COL David Turk made Aug 15 at 2016 1:42 AM

COL David Turk — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 01:42:50 -0400

That's an interesting thought. On the surface, sounds like a great concept, but the potential candidates would have to be prescreened for undesirable attributes; e.g., convicted felon, low IQ (Forest Gump), no desire.

Response by Cpl Anthony Pearson made Aug 15 at 2016 10:10 AM

Cpl Anthony Pearson — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:10:26 -0400

I don't think so, however, I do believe in Term Limits. Change is good.

Response by PO2 Pete Haga made Aug 15 at 2016 2:58 PM

PO2 Pete Haga — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:58:17 -0400

term limits for all elected officials like I have said all along get rid of the fat cats and officials who look like they belong in a retirement home or jail cell. 8 years for all and not retro active if you have served more that 8 get the hell out of DC.

Response by SPC Tom Clark made Aug 18 at 2016 8:36 PM

SPC Tom Clark — Thu, 18 Aug 2016 20:36:23 -0400

Term limits for a representatives and senators are something I would like to see. I also would like laws congress makes for the citizens of the country should not exempt the members of congress. I believe senators should have a two term limit and representatives should have a 3 term limit. I would also like to see all of the current retirement benefits of all members of congress eliminated, and federal employees retirement system initiated instead.