The Citizens’ Congress

Common Sense Paper No. 56

The Citizens’ Congress

The creation of a Citizens’ Congress is a very bold idea. It sounds difficult, but it represents a must-try step for disrupting the two-party system as we know it.

Why?

I have wrestled with this idea for almost two years. It’s a simple concept of architecture—a bridging mechanism—that propels me to make this a key feature of the proposed pathway forward to reboot the entire United States political apparatus.

Common Sense Paper No. 55 touched on the Revenue Model innovation needed for Independent politics to take off—a crowdfunding system, plus a coalition membership fee.

The architecture that is needed for a new Process Model innovation in politics is the Citizen Assembly. Do you remember learning about the flying buttress system of medieval cathedrals? This form of superstructure allowed tall buildings to distribute weight while allowing beautiful stained-glass windows to let the light in. It kept the walls from bulging out.

Politically speaking, we need to keep the political system from “bulging out” and collapsing due to the weight of polarization in our duopoly structure. We need to let positive political light—good ideas based on “common good” incentives—enter the structure of our system of governance.

Why the Citizens’ Assembly?

Answer: Because no third party can form a big enough coalition of the left, center, and right to win. The superstructure that is needed to form an independent coalition should be steered by a Citizens’ Assembly mechanism that spans the full political spectrum. This political innovation is often capable of achieving high-consensus reform ideas without falling into ideological tribes. It’s the best way to unite competing factions (like-minded adversaries). It can’t be bought. It’s tough to corrupt with concentrated self-interest. It allows Independents to work on the same team. It allows all third parties in the United States to become relevant at the same time. It’s a game-changer!

The idea of a Citizens’ Congress is not mine. If you want to be successful in life, take the best ideas of the experts who speak up. This innovative idea finds its way into The Common Sense Papers thanks to the politically astute insights of writers Thomas E. Mann & Norman J. Ornstein. In their book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, Mann and Ornstein make suggestions for navigating the current system. One such suggestion is the creation of a shadow Congress—a congress of citizens that functions without the trappings of actual political power. [Note: “shadow Congress” is their terminology, but sounds kind of creepy, so we use Citizens’ Congress for mass appeal]. Here is their argument:

In our conversations with former lawmakers from both parties, we are struck by their amazement, anger, and exasperation with their former colleagues; it is as if, once they left the peculiar air breathed inside the congressional chamber and inhaled a less noxious set of fumes, they were freed from a trance. We have thus thought of creating a parallel or shadow Congress of former lawmakers from across the political spectrum who would periodically gather and debate key issues facing the country. Our goal would be to have the kind of debate and deliberation that Congress should engage in but, to be frank, rarely did even in better days.

A shadow Congress could expand those colloquies to a wide number of former lawmakers and encourage real give-and-take with heated exchanges, not all along strictly partisan lines. We would expect the members selected to appreciate the viewpoints of opposing colleagues and accept their legitimacy. Given the disrepute of the current, real Congress, the parallel Congress might well receive significant public attention, with its debates triggering additional discussions on public affairs shows like Nightline, Meet the Press, and PBS NewsHour, and perhaps encouraging local versions of the debates on individual public television stations. The debates could prove enlightening to viewers and listeners and might also provide a powerful role model for the real Congress to change its own culture of argument.¹

My adjustments to the suggestions of Mann and Ornstein include at least two points:

1. I would not restrict the Citizens’ Assembly to former lawmakers. It can include individuals from business, academia, agriculture, and all walks of life. It could also include those up-and-coming politicians who aspire to run for election, or who have already run. The details about representative composition, the manner of appointment, the process of selection by lot, approval/ratification, and other such factors still need to be determined and spelled out.

2. I think a full national Citizen Assembly system is needed to guide the independent coalition, not just a single shadow Congress. This would break up components of governance to maximize the alignment of positive incentives for healthy reforms.

How would it work?

The Citizens’ Congress is meant to define the platform for the movement. It begins with the five-point platform from Common Sense Paper No. 54, but then refines this platform over time. It prioritizes the legislative agenda that candidates must champion to represent the movement in exchange for crowdfunding and PAC support. It unites the independent political movement against the duopoly. It allows independent candidates to form a fulcrum caucus in the House of Representatives.

This stands in contrast to the DNC and RNC running the major parties of our day. It stands in contrast to the political platforms, developed by party insiders and power brokers, that force ideological acceptance upon the base members.

Citizens’ Assemblies are already showing breakthrough potential around the world. The Convention on the Constitution in Ireland (2013-2014) is one great example. The standing Paris Citizens’ Assembly, which brings together 100 residents of Paris, drawn by lot, for a mandate of about one year, is another example.

For a very brief sketch, I reference the ideas of Terrill G. Bouricius as published in the Journal of Public Deliberation.² Bouricius highlights the need for multiple bodies that must operate to perform the functions of good legislative activity. These bodies include:

1. The Agenda Council, which would have the responsibility for setting the priority of problems to solve. The problems would be informed by membership surveys.

2. The Interest Panels, which would have the responsibility to draft legislative proposals. The panels have no power to choose the outcome. The panels could be supplemented by think tanks that compete to offer ideas much like venture capital groups that host pitch contests to fund startup businesses.

3. The Review Panels, which would be the main body of the Citizens’ Congress. From Bouricious, “The Review Panel would perform traditional legislative activities: holding hearings, inviting and listening to expert witnesses, utilizing professional staff for research and drafting, and amending or combining elements from the proposals submitted by Interest Panels to produce a final bill.”³

4. The Policy Juries, which would vote to adopt the policy platforms recommended by the Review Panels. At least 400 members would be needed, but juries could encompass thousands of members representatively selected by lot. These juries ratify the work of the Citizens’ Congress.

5. The Rules Council, which governs and adjusts the rules of the system without being party to all the other decision-making that each body controls.

By breaking these key activities into separate bodies, we remove corrupt self-interest from the legislative process and re-election considerations of members of elected bodies. Thus, the platform is designed to arrive at unique outcomes that the current Congress is incapable of attaining. These outcomes become the agenda that independents take to Congress for actual deliberation and implementation. The model can be simplified to fit organizational needs and budgetary considerations.

Ultimately, the Common Sense 250 Citizens’ Congress would have two major roles: 1) model debate and move public opinion and the behavior of the United States Congress on the major national policy issues confronting our country (especially as reflected in the Citizens’ Agenda, which will be discussed in the next essay), and 2) serve as the gatekeeping body for interviewing and screening candidates who want to run for federal office and seek placement for crowdfunding on the national technology platform that serves as the launchpad for Independents and third-party candidates. By ensuring that candidates who are eligible for crowdfunding meet certain standards and will abide by the coalition reform agenda and other guidelines, the Citizens’ Congress can earn the trust of its members and the American public at large. The CS250 membership base can be confident that a solid united bloc of Independents will represent local constituencies for their common good and the best interests of the country.

Notes for new readers:

The Common Sense Papers are an offering by Common Sense 250, which proposes a method to realign the two-party system with the creation of a new political superstructure that circumvents the current dysfunctional duopoly. The goal is to heal political divisions and reboot the American political system for an effective federal government. If the movement can gain appeal, a call to crowdfund the project may occur in 2024 or 2025. Subscribe for free with an email to follow along.

The tabs on the top of the Substack page can bring you to earlier essays that spell out key political issues. Common Sense Paper No. 1, No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 can help anyone get up to speed on the project.

Common Sense 250 is still working out details on launching a podcast for those who want to listen to the political strategy but don’t have time to read. Subscribe and watch for an email announcement.

1. Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism (New York: Basic Books, 2016) pp. 183-184.

2. Bouricius, Terrill G. (2013) "Democracy Through Multi-Body Sortition: Athenian Lessons for the Modern Day," Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 9 : Iss. 1 , Article 11.
Available at: https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss1/art11

3. Ibid.