# Jury Selection of Officials



## konrad (Mar 29, 2009)

One of my internet acquaintances, Burt Prelutsky, recently stated “…if we chose our 100 senators, 435 members of congress, president and vice-president, by picking names out of a hat, we’d improve our chances of getting decent people in office.”

On the surface it seemed a humorous proposition (he is a very funny guy) but further reflection on the idea brings to light brilliant reasoning. Perhaps, the idea of “free elections” has run its course in America. After all, those originally allowed voting privileges were only white, land owning males. Over time the rights were extended to virtually all drawing breath on our fair shores and just look how well that idea has worked. 

We now have career politicians in offices that were conceived of as single or at most double terms. The founding fathers believed no sane man would seek permanent office in government. The idea was preposterous that anyone of moral fibre would allow himself to be abused at the hands of the electorate for more than a few years, much less a lifetime.

That was before big money was injected into the mix. Please explain to me how someone making a few hundred thousand dollars a year can serve two or three terms and then walk away a millionaire.

To modify Burt’s hypothesis…If we were to substitute a jury selection process instead of elections for “high office”, would or could we be worse off? On a daily basis we take folks from all walks and social strata and place them in charge of life and death decisions. They decide the fates of companies and individuals alike. Interestingly, many try to escape their duties (probably the best candidates) but most are willing to submit to a brief cloistered existence knowing full well their term has limits and eventually they will be allowed to return to society. Of course their jobs would have to be protected and the office’s pay scale could be used as an additional incentive. If, after all, you were looking at a concrete worker being moved into the seat of Congressional Representative, that pay increase might be an inducement to serve…it might be...I’m not too sure. 

My main point being: Most red-blooded Americans have an instinctive revulsion to government buildings and proceedings and tend to breathe a sigh of relief when they are allowed timely escape. I don’t know about you but these are exactly the folks I want working out the national budget and international and social policy. Not only would decisions actually be made in a timely fashion, they would most likely be made with an eye to the nation’s future and their own children’s and grandchildren’s future…not to the extension of their political careers.

It seems to me the idea has merit to consider.


----------



## MNmike (Dec 27, 2003)

BUT....

Who chooses the Jurors?


----------



## Curve1 (Nov 25, 2009)

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny". 
*Thomas Jefferson*


----------



## tiny52 (Dec 31, 2010)

> The founding fathers believed no sane man would seek permanent office in government. The idea was preposterous that anyone of moral fibre would allow himself to be abused at the hands of the electorate for more than a few years, much less a lifetime.
> 
> That was before big money was injected into the mix. Please explain to me how someone making a few hundred thousand dollars a year can serve two or three terms and then walk away a millionaire.


This is the reason that we all are doomed to extinction as a super power


----------

