A Potential Democracy Game-Changer: Collective Accountability for Members of Congress

An area of intense focus for the political reform movement is our dysfunctional Congress. Such efforts as open primaries, ranked choice voting, proportional representation, anti-gerrymandering, and campaign finance reform have made fixing Congress a primary objective. As they become more widely adopted, they will improve representation legitimacy and legislative outcomes. But they may not be sufficient by themselves to deliver the quantum improvement in governance that our country desperately needs.

The time may be rapidly approaching when much more robust reforms to our democracy become feasible, even if they require amendments to the Constitution. Supermajorities of Americans now believe that fundamental structural changes to the system are necessary. They would like to hear about ideas that are totally nonpartisan; that more strongly incentivize consensus-driven outcomes responsive to the will of the people; that can galvanize an electorate ready to unleash its energy in support of rejuvenating our democracy; and that can yield meaningful results well in advance of any needed constitutional changes.

---

With these criteria in mind, I would like to introduce Fulcrum readers to an early-stage concept that is worthy of consideration. It is called the Public Check on Congress (PCC).

PCC would establish a new constitutional mechanism by which the national electorate, as a whole, by means of a nationwide referendum, could periodically hold the members of Congress—of all parties and both Houses—collectively accountable for Congress’ overall performance. PCC would oblige the members of Congress to take a substantial measure of joint (bipartisan and bicameral) responsibility for what they do and choose not to do, with significant consequences if that performance falls short.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

At the end of this article is a link to a more complete explanation of PCC. It includes a first draft of a constitutional amendment that would be required for full implementation, although much of the benefit could accrue long before final ratification when Congress sees the handwriting of collective accountability on the wall.

Here’s a checklist of some important ways PCC could improve our democracy:

• Create a powerful new incentive for Congress to reach a consensus on legislation in alignment with the public interest.
• Ameliorate polarization in both Congress and society at large.
• Strengthen Congress’ guardrails vis à vis the other branches of government.
• Significantly offset the ill effects of gerrymandering.
• Incentivize more strategic, longer-term planning to support longer-range policy areas, such as fiscal sustainability, environmentalism, AI technology, geopolitical policy, etc.
• Provide more leverage for younger voters.
• Establish a more positive bond of trust and confidence between members of Congress and the public.
• Increase admiration and respect for America on the world stage.

PCC would have a number of other attractive attributes. As a referendum on congressional performance, it would be our only national election that is not a “lesser of evils” choice. It would give voters the choice between “a pox on both your houses” or a nod of satisfaction to Congress as a whole. It would also be the only nationwide election where every vote would be relevant, not just those in swing districts and states. And PCC would be uncomplicated for citizens to understand and execute on their ballots. (Some have already captured its essence by nicknaming it the “Shape Up or Ship Out” amendment.)

PCC is consistent with the original intentions of the U.S. Founders. They anticipated that their system of checks and balances might require some adjustments from time to time and expected future generations to make them.

For readers who are intrigued by the Public Check on Congress and would like to learn more about it, please click on the link below. Allow yourself some “steep time” for a few paradigms to shift.

For example, we know that all members of Congress have two responsibilities. The first is an individual responsibility each member has to their local district or state. The second is a collective responsibility each shares with all other members of Congress to serve the national interest. But while each is held accountable for their individual local responsibility by means of their local election, they are not held collectively accountable for their collective responsibility. The nation as a whole has no opportunity to vote on their collective performance. This “accountability gap” is a root cause of much congressional dysfunction. PCC would address this accountability gap with its powerful incentive to reach a consensus and act in the national interest. And if properly designed, it would do so without unduly interfering with members’ responsibility to their local constituency.

There are several other opportunities you will have to relax your grip on the status quo as you read the linked memo. You might even be stimulated to come up with other helpful new ideas that fit within the expanding Overton window of political reform possibilities.

For a more complete explanation of the Public Check on Congress, go to:

https://www.publiccheckoncongress.com/_files/ugd/c6a3ba_7f65ffda33c874f998c9360aa38bf4501.pdf

I welcome any comments at this address: wlb744@gmail.com

Bill Bridgman is a retired businessman. He is the Founder of the Public Check on Congress project and a member of the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers.