Tiered election system

I can hear you all now, another wacky idea from me. Give me a second and listen for a bit though. I have been thinking for a bit and influenced by my readings on Syndicalism and the like and the upcoming elections this was just something I thought about.

In the united states voters not only have to vote on their representatives in the national government but also on state and local elections. having to keep track of all these various things kinda got me thinking, what if we didnt have to?

From my slight readings of Council Democracy under this system there would be a system of tiered elections whereby the people will vote for and elect representatives to a council to manage their workplace and then this council in turn would elect representatives to a district council then these district councils elect representatives to a regional council and so on. Under this systems whereby councils will continuously elect the council above it until you reach the national council which will rule the nation as a whole.

The form this would take in the USA if implemented would probably involve would be voters electing a municipal council to rule over them and then those electing a county council who would then elect a state council who would then elect members of the national council.

I was just thinking could something like this have been implemented in the united states in its formative years, and if it did what effects would it have especially if this were to continue into the modern day? I know that this system only really came into being roughly in the 19th century but the overall idea is more or less sound and feasibly could of been thought of in the time period corresponding with the American Independence War with some tweaks here and there; no instantly revocable delegates for one. I was thinking it could be justified as a check on mob rule perhaps.

Mind you one of the reasons I am asking this question is because I am currently involved in an Rp with some compatriots on another sight. In said Rp I play a country which was formed during the time period and whose leadership and conduct were a little on the radical albeit authoritarian side of things. This is more or less the electoral system I had them adopt in said RP during said formation.

So what are your thoughts?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The system is actually much older than you think. Several Germanic societies seem to have been run in a way very much like this. Essentially, every town/community had a popular assembly (based on place and time, this was usually open to all free adult men, or to all landowners - the latter of which occasionally included women) called the Thing. Again based on time and place, its function was to either arbitrate judicial disputes, or (less frequently) to actually serve as a governing body. Although practices often varied, in various places, the members of the Thing elected a representative from their midst to become part of a Gothing (or 'Gau-thing', or 'Gouw-(ge)ding' - the names of these things obviously vary from place to place) which basically meant "shire-assembly". Such a representative was often called a 'Fyrst' or some equivalent term (literally meaning 'first', and also the origin of the German word 'Fürst', which in turn means something like 'lord' or 'prince' - in the exact same way that Latin 'Princeps', also literally 'first', became 'prince' later on). Members of the Gothing then elected Fyrsts of their own to a Landsthing, or an Allthing, or whatever name this 'national assembly' (or rather: assembly of the whole tribe/people) had. Typically, the local assembly met regularly, while the overarching Allthing only met once a year, or once a season.

The important fact is that such a system was not unknown. It had largely disappeared, some intitutions continuing to exist in name here and there. But in several places in Germany and Scandinavia, a Thing still existed up until recent times. I know a German village where a plaque commemorates the last time the local Thing assembled, before being legally replaced by a 'regular' municipal council... in 1918.

It is also a fact that, modern republicanism being a rather new thing and nothing yet set in stone, several Founding Fathers looked to various historical traditions. Many looked to ancient Greece and Rome, of course. Jefferson in particular was very charmed by Germanic (specifically Anglo-Saxon) traditions, which he viewed as being particularly 'honest'. (I paraphrase; his exact wording eludes me.) In his view, the rights of free men had been upheld in Anglo-Saxon times, from which the idea of 'the rights of Englishmen' had been derived. King George III had stamped on those rights, and the Americans should harken back to those old Anglo-Saxon rights and traditions. (To be clear: Jefferson was a romantic, and I doubt he had a very clear grasp of the exact workings of Anglo-Saxon society.)

Interestingly, Jefferson was very much in favour of direct democracy, but others tended to fear mob rule. Tiered democracy might well appeal to them. Suggestion: have Jefferson dig up some sources about it, and have him introduce the notion early on, mainly because he likes the idea of the local assembly in which every free man may speak. And then, when Jefferson goes off to France, have others use the same idea because they like the 'tiered election' idea. Eventually, it ends up in the constitution because it appeals to both arguments.

And thus, the USA ends up with a system where municipalities are governed by assemblies of all free citizens (probably all free male citizens), who elect members for a county assembly from amongst their midst. The members of the county assembly elect members for a state assembly from amongst their midst. And the members of the state assembly elect members of the federal congress from amongst their midst. ...and maybe the members of Congress elect the President... from amongst their midst?

It would be radically different, to be sure. Ironically, even though I only see Jefferson bringing it up in the first place, the end result would be very close to what his Federalist opponents had in mind: a country free from mob rule, governed by the notion that at every level, communities select their best to represent them on a higher level, so that congress is a 'natural elite', and the president is - theoretically - the very best man that America has to offer.

Personally... I rather like it, in theory. It could work out just fine. It would probably prevent a lot of populism. But there are obvious drawbacks, too. The resulting political order would likely tend towards a rather conservative attitude. (Not in the 'reactionary' sense, but in the 'don't change things unless they really need to be' sense.) I dare to suspect that if something like syndicalism were to develop in this timeline, its adherents would be trying to abolish this system.
 
So how about ensuring that State legislatures elect both houses of Congress and the President, and that citizens have no direct vote on federal level?
 
So how about ensuring that State legislatures elect both houses of Congress and the President, and that citizens have no direct vote on federal level?
 
Tiered systems tend to be oligarchical and, as Skallagrim said, conservative.
The US Trend has been awa from them (Senate), and for good democratic reason.
In our times, it would be unnecessarily elitist.
But of course throughout much of history, such a system would have been much preferrable to the autocratic and feudal structures which dominated IOTL. In the Middle Ages and into Early Modernity, mass communication Media did not exist, travel took a lot of time, so such systems made sense. Hell, it would even have been a solution for a more stable and resilient Roman state, had it grown differently.
 
During Second Punic War, a proposal was made to have 2 representatives from each city that stayed loyal to Rome in Roman Senate. It was shouted down.
How was the Senate of Italy at Corfinium recruited?
 
Tiered system was used in France for States General elections : first election at parish level, second one at sénéchaussée (small local district) level. In the discussions for the 1791 constitution, the tiered system had its partisans, but it was discarded in favour of a complex system giving only "active" citizens the right to vote (c. 61% of the male above-25 population, 15 of the entire population). It made its comeback in 1799 in a peculiar way : the citizens (all males above 21) in a arrondissement (small local district) elected 1/10th of their number to be notable. These arrondissement notables elected 1/10th of their number to be département (large local district) notables. These notables elected among themselves (again, 10%) the national notables. The Consuls (Bonaparte) and the Senate (an unelected assembly) then chose the deputies among the national notables, the local councillors among the local notables, and the various executives. So it was a tiered system of potential public office holders, not a tiered system of elected public office holders, as Bonaparte and the conservative intended to keep things under their control.
 
Top