Roman offices

The United States’ political founders understood the nature of man and the risks of direct democracy (rule of the mob). They designed a system of “checks and balances” to ensure that a system of representative government would not aggregate power at the center or allow the whims of the majority or any minority to be served.

Yet today we live in a time where the “cult of individualism” rules. Senators are directly elected, not by state legislatures. National political candidates are chosen by popular vote in primaries, with limited political party filtering or influence. Earmarks are considered “dirty business”, so they cannot be used to influence the votes of individual legislators. Representatives and candidates create individual brands and raise funds independent of political parties. A majority of political districts at the state and national levels are gerrymandered to ensure that incumbents are re-elected without credible opponents in the general election. There are effectively no limits to political fundraising by individual candidates. Only a small share of highly motivated, largely extremist individuals vote in the primaries where most elections are won.

As a result, we have either partisan monopolies or polarized governments. Almost 80% of states endure one party rule.

Winning the Trifecta: Increased Single Party Control of Governors and State Legislatures

The Senate Does Not Advocate for the Whole or the Center Today

The US Senate was intended to play the role of offsetting or delaying the demands of popular government in the House of Representatives. The House could propose and the cozy, experienced, independent Senate could “dispose” of legislation. In our current polarized system, with disproportionate representation to rural and Republican leaning states, the Senate is as politicized as the House. Bipartisanship is rare. Seeking the public good is rare. Fighting to win for your party is the only goal.

Any number of reforms could make the Senate more effective in serving its intended function. Campaign financing reform. More senators for very high population states. Increased rules and committee power for the minority party. A 60-vote filibuster rule with time limits.

A Solution: A Council of Advisors

Congress should create a “Council of Advisors” to advocate for the country as a whole, highlighting representatives and legislation that are supported by a significant majority of the country rather than by one political party or the other.

Former governors or US Senators could choose to run in a biannual referendum where they would be required to earn 60% of the popular vote in order to be appointed to a single 10-year term as an advisor, elder or guardian. The body would have a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 30 members. The body would be qualified to offer opinions only when each of the two major parties had at least one-third of the representatives.

The Council of Advisors would have two functions. First, it would consider whether Senators who are seeking re-election have “generally acted on behalf of the American public in a bipartisan fashion during their last term of office”. Senators who earned 60% of the vote of the Council of Advisors who be designated as “approved” by the Council. Others would not have this seal of approval.

Second, the Senate could refer any single bill to this body each month and seek its approval as “generally supported by the American people as a whole” on the basis of a 60% affirmative vote.

The Council would be a solely advisory body. It would be composed of individuals who were approved by the people as representing the country as a whole. It would have moral authority to make judgments about Senators and legislation. This moral authority would help to pressure both parties to produce legislation that serves the majority of the public and that is supported by the majority of the public. In essence, it would be a counterweight to the many pressures for polarization and “winner take all” politics that is practiced today.

I believe that we have unintentionally arrived at the current state of affairs where political pandering to the lowest common denominator drives our political decisions. There ARE important political judgments that cannot be compromised in the long run. But most of our political issues do NOT require a one side wins and the other side loses result. Our elected officials are intended to represent our views and to provide results. Political results that involve creative solutions, imperfect processes and administration (sausage making), negotiations and compromise. Every for profit and not-for-profit organization lives by these same rules. They have owners, customers, employees and stakeholders with competing claims. Yet, the organization’s leaders must produce acceptable results and be held accountable. We need to have these same expectations and processes for elected officials.

Just as a president or CEO is faced with the judgment of a board of directors, our US Senators need to have a Council of Advisors review their performance.