Streamlining the actual process of the legislature so that more can get done
The world moves much faster now than in the 1700s, but our legislature is still crippled with a slow moving proceduralism that has changed only slightly since the 1700s.
We mentioned before the idea that the political process should aim for its goals directly, and achieve them in the simplest way. So for instance, the public will want any amendment to the Constitution to be done in a slow and deliberate manner, therefore it makes sense to have a law that says this must take two votes, separated by some years.
But for the process of the committees or legislatures when they are conducting ordinary business, we really should want things to move along as fast as possible. And that might entail rethinking their old processes, many of which date back to the 1700s and much of which is obsolete.
What are some old fashioned ideas about a legislature that made sense in the 1700s?
1. the legislators should meet in a room with each other
2. the legislators should give speeches, which should be recorded in some kind of official record
3. the legislators should be allowed to ask each other questions, with the answers becoming part of an official record (in Britain, the weekly Prime Minister Questions)
4. the legislature should have a chairman
5. the chairman should recognize someone before they speak to the chamber
6. once a legislator has been recognized by the chairman, the legislator can propose a law
7. the law must be seconded by some other legislator
8. the chairman can allow time for debate and amendments
9. the proposed law can be amended while it is being considered
10. depending on the legislature, the chairman can call the vote via their own power, or a legislator must move to end debate and call the vote
11. the period of debate and amendment might vary from a day to several months
Of these 11 ideas, we can get rid of all of them. They are all obsolete. A modern legislature might organize along these lines:
1. The legislature never meets.
2. The debate happens in books, newspapers, television appearances, live streaming on YouTube, speeches given at churches and universities, plus any other venue where people should want to discuss political issues. The debate does not happen in a particular room, in particular building, in a particular city.
3. The chairman is replaced by a non-partisan secretary who has no power, they have obligations specified in law, which they must follow exactly. The process of holding a vote is detailed in law, the secretary simply shepherds the important documents from one part of the process to the next part of the process, ensuring that every legislator is kept abreast of each new development.
4. Any legislator, at any time, can send a bill to the secretary. The bill does not need to be seconded and the legislature does not need to be in session. The secretary has 72 hours to notify the other legislators, or their staff, that a bill is now under consideration. There might be several hundred bills in motion at once; it is up to the secretary and the various staffs to ensue that the legislators are aware of the progress of each bill.
5. The secretary might have a large staff to help manage the movement of several hundred simultaneous bills.
6. No amendments are allowed, but the legislator who proposed a bill can always withdraw it and re-propose it, if they find that some tweak to the bill will attract a few more votes. Withdrawing the bill and re-proposing it starts the process over again, from the beginning.
7. Every bill is under consideration for 180 days or till it acquires “yes” votes from an absolute majority of the assembly. If it has not acquired an absolute majority after 180 days, then it dies automatically. As a courtesy, 72 hours before the end of voting the secretary can check with the staff of any legislator who has not yet recorded a view, to ask, “Voting will end in 3 days, did you mean to vote for this?”
8. It is a meaningless gesture, but for purely symbolic reasons, a legislator should be allowed to vote “no” if they wish and have that recorded as part of the official vote. Keep in mind that the bill requires an absolute majority of the assembly to pass, so any legislator who does nothing is effectively voting “no.” They don’t actually have to vote “no” to kill the bill, but they can if they wish. Also, since this legislature never meets in person, obviously there is no meaningful reason for a legislator to vote “present.”
This is just one of many ideas that pragmatic idealists might want to consider. The point is this allows someone who is newly elected to propose a bill and get a vote on it; the newly elected idealist does not need to waste year after year building up favors. It certainly is true that they might need to build up political capital to get an absolute majority to vote for their bill, but this new system would remove some of the roadblocks, in particular the ability of the chairman or the party leadership to block consideration of a bill. Also, this establishes as a norm that many bills might be considered simultaneously, so the old excuse of “We have higher priorities for this session” would no longer be valid.
In other words, let's make it possible to get things done quickly, at least where ordinary business is concerned.
Added on January 19th, 2023:
Cheryl Johnson is a good example of “The chairman is replaced by a non-partisan secretary who has no power.”
This year, in the USA, the House of Representatives went several days without a Speaker. Cheryl Johnson ran the House during this time. She did this professionally, with exemplary skill and ethics. Her performance is a reminder a legislature does not need a partisan participant to play the role of leader.
But also remember this has been normal in Britain for centuries:
John Simon Bercow was Speaker of the House of Commons from 2009 to 2019, under both Labour and Conservative governments, and he performed the job very well. Conservatives felt that he showed some bias around the finalization of the Brexit treaty, and while the Conservatives are clearly a bunch cry-babies who whine about everything, if we feel they were correct about this, the rules could be tightened so that the ideal of “The chairman is replaced by a non-partisan secretary who has no power” is fulfilled with a secretary who truly has no power.