RANDOM SELECTION OF PANELISTS
The first step in convening a priority panel would be selecting a national random sample of four hundred citizen panelists.[11] The federal government would not do the sampling itself, but instead contract with a professional nonproflt organization, such as an academic research institute at a public university. The recruiters would use quotas and flnancial incentives to ensure a relatively random sample of the nation's population. Demographic quotas would use census data on the entire adult population, including those not registered to vote, so that the panelists would represent the nation as a whole.[12]
Once demographic quotas and random sampling identify potential panelists, recruiters would contact citizens in person or, when possible, by phone or mail. Excepting those citizens unable to deliberate for medical reasons, or due to incarceration, recruiters would seek as high a participation rate as possible and only pursue new citizen panelists when unable to persuade initial recruits to participate. Some citizens would no doubt gladly seize the opportunity to talk politics with a small group of their peers, but others might only participate with the right incentives. The simplest positive incentive would be payment, which might be free travel and accommodation plus a $600 honorarium.[13] In the same way that jury duty laws protect employees, the law that enacts the priority panels could prohibit employers from pressuring employees to decline to participate. Some might take the jury example a step farther and compel participation on the panels, but I prefer permitting citizens to make their own decision. So long as adequate incentives are provided to potential panelists, self-selection should
Even if one accepts that it would be possible to recruit a representative sample, one might object to the very idea of using a national sample to judge senators and representatives elected in geographic districts. Why should conservative voters in Utah or liberal voters in Massachusetts care what a national sample views as legislative priorities? Is not the point of the Senate to represent the genuinely distinct interests of different states, just as the individual House districts within those states represent the varied interests within them? These questions reflect long-held beliefs about the district system of election popular in the United States, and I am sympathetic to critics who embrace the idea of priority panels but want to convene a state or district panel instead of a national one. Nevertheless, I wish to make an argument for using national sampling to create a single priority panel for Congress (or, for that matter, one statewide panel per state legislature).
As I argue in chapter 2, the point of deliberation is to bring together conflicting views to seek out points of agreement, if not full unanimity, on pressing public policy problems. The job of congressional representatives is not only to represent their respective districts but also to create policies that serve the best interests of the nation as a whole. Joseph Bessette, in The Mild Voice of Reason (1994), used a careful study of legislative history to demonstrate that some members of Congress do act in this manner and have considerable influence over their peers. Even Bessette, however, sees an ominous trend in federal policymaking: "The demise of so many Congressional constraints on mere self-seeking suggests that the Congress as a whole has become a less deliberative institution in recent decades. Less and less do the members of the House and Senate seem willing to sacriflce their private advantage for the sake of responsible lawmaking.[14]
Similar concerns about the chaos that comes with individual districts has led some critics of Congress to propose a unifled national election system, such as the "universal representation" scheme outlined in chapter 4. In a way, the priority panel takes the middle course by leaving voters with district elections but giving them a shared set of policy priorities that they can use to evaluate their unique sets of candidates.