Is it time for a new constitutional amendment?

How adding more randomness to voting might solve America's problems.

One of the most commonly cited polls in American politics is the favorable rating of the U.S. Congress. It’ll come as no surprise to anyone that Congress members are a deeply unpopular bunch. But time and time again, polls have also shown that while the American public has broad distaste for Congress as a whole, they are more sympathetic to their own representatives. The latest figures released by ABC News-Washington Post show that just 23 percent see Congress as a whole favorably, but 41 percent approve of their own representative.

Something that is rarely measured is whether Congressional representatives themselves approve of their constituents. Our guess is that they do. After all, politics today is as much about politicians picking the voters as it is about constituents voting for their representatives.

Every ten years, the United States Census Bureau performs a count of people living in the United States. The result is important in determining the number of seats each state is allowed to have in the House of Representatives. Some states fare better than others. In the last tally, southern states gained an additional eight House seats.

But just as importantly, when it comes time every ten years to reform Congressional districts based on new reapportionment, it’s up to the state legislators to draw the maps. It’s no secret that Republicans and Democrats have this game fixed, leaning on state legislatures to create odd-shaped maps that attempt to maximize advantages for their respective political party as well as for incumbents. The process is known as “gerrymandering,” and is now subject to many court battles.

One can’t help but believe that Congress’ huge unfavorable rating is partly a symptom of this approach. Congressman are no doubt dinged for their inability to properly address pressing issues like jobs and the debt, but the American public seems just as unsatisfied by an unwillingness to compromise.

As an economist might put it, there’s simply no political incentive to make bargains for the larger American interest. After all, congressmen are largely motivated by re-election prospects, and since constituents determine that fate, it makes sense that each member of Congress makes decisions that are narrowly tailored to their gerrymandered district instead of the United States as a whole. Is there any wonder why poll after poll shows the American public more sympathetic to their own representative as opposed to the other guys?

What to do about it?

Recently, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig has been going around, promoting his new book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It, and touting the idea of holding a Constitutional Convention to discuss needed amendments to the United States operating system. The Atlantic has gone so far as to promote Lessig’s idea as the “next step” for Occupy Wall Street as protesters move away from their cold-weather camps and take shelter in real political action.

But what potential constitutional amendments deserve consideration?

Certainly, foremost on the minds of many, are proposals that would take out the money in politics and curtail corporate influence on elections. Already, several Democratic senators have proposed  an Amendment that would effectively overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United by giving Congress the power to regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to federal elections.

Not a bad idea, but obviously, Republicans aren’t going to like it, and there’s no guarantee that Congress will then pass election finance reform nor that it will be effective.

Here’s another suggestion: Change the way that people vote for congressmen.

Right now, it happens by geography (and rather loosely, judging by those odd-shaped Congressional maps).

But maybe that’s an antiquated model.

After all, unlike the 18th Century, we live in a global economy where borders don’t mean as much as they used to, thanks to the wonders of a networked society. The internet has spread culture and economy to the extent that something happening in one corner of the country effects how people behave in another corner. Furthermore, the internet potentially allows people to vote online. Is there really a need these days to show up at a polling booth when possible superior options exist in this digital age?

Here’s something else to think about: Voting-by-geography is a somewhat arbitrary system in the first place.

Sure, we share some needs with our closest geographical neighbors, but it’s not the only way to apportion a constituency. One could group dog-owners versus cat-owners versus those who own no pets, as one example. Or one could group the upper 1% of income earners into one voting constituency, and similarly group other income brackets. (One sociological takeaway from Occupy Wall Street is that many people feel more similarity with those who share their economic position in life than those who share a street address.)

But before we propose a system that would surely lead to conservative attacks of “class warfare,” let’s examine an even more radical approach – assigning congressmen to portions of the population at random.

The total number of voting members in the House of Representatives is 435.

What if every voting-eligible individual in America got randomly assigned a number between 1 and 435?

What if any man or woman who wished to run for Congress also got randomly assigned to a district between 1 and 435?

And what if they were matched? (Other methods might work. This is just a quick example of such a random-based system.)

Here’s what we think might happen: Congressmen would have a lot tougher time figuring out how to satisfy their constituents. After all, they’d hardly know who these people were.

In the old days, that might not have been too appetizing. Farmers in Iowa, for example, would lose out on having someone who could lobby for their interests.

These days, however, that might not be such a bad thing. Even conservatives bemoan the fact that congressmen fight for subsidies, pork projects, and earmarks that benefit their geographic constituents at the expense of the U.S. budget.

Here’s another advantage: Congressmen would have a lot tougher time advertising themselves to potential voters.

One of the features of the current approach is that voters are clustered together, making it possible for candidates to spend lots of money on TV commercials and “get out the vote” operations. If constituents were dispersed around the country, politicians would have more trouble winning votes by campaign expenditures alone.

Might the influence of money erode? Instead of crafting messages to custom-tailored voting blocs, politicians would need – dare we dream -- to win hearts and minds with common-sense actions broadly appealing to the masses.

Make no mistake about it, geographic interests will still survive under this approach. After all, the proposal suggests no changes to the U.S. Senate, which would still represent state-by-state interests and be the check on whimsical actions that the Founding Fathers intended it to be.

But in setting up the bicameral approach, the creators of this nation wished to create a legislative body in the House that would more accurately reflect the interests of the populace. For years, that’s been served by getting very local. But now, as some polls register Congress’ approval rate at just 9 percent, it might be time to examine a much bigger shakeup than merely replacing the current stewards of American democracy.

Follow me @eriqgardner