In part 1, we learned that our elected representatives represented many more people than they did in the past.  In part 6, we read a compelling assertion that our country was in decline, followed by the possibility of reversing that decline through greater public participation in governance.  In part 8, we learned how an “overpopulation” of constituents was adversely affecting election campaigns.  How might we fix election campaigns?  

The first thought which comes to mind is that there is nothing sacred about having four hundred thirty-five House members, one hundred twenty California state representatives, five county supervisors, five school-board members, and five city councilors.  We could have more representatives, which means that each of them would have fewer constituents and would need less money—if any—to communicate with constituents.  

Also, if constituents were more involved in governance, a candidate could visit constituents in groups, inside of having to communicate with them individually.  This would save the candidate time and money, as well as improve the quality of the encounter, as a group of constituents would ask useful questions which each of us might not think to ask or have the courage to ask.  Did you know that a candidate for state assembly told me about a year and a half ago that he would ask lobbyists to talk first to constituent committees, which then would report to him?  Wow, what a change that could make!  Unfortunately, that candidate lost in the 2006 primary.

There is a less direct, but perhaps equally effective, way.  Imagine if donors to election campaigns told candidates how to spend donated money:  “If you want this donation, you must hire high schoolers to set up neighborhood coffees.”  This puts candidates in contact with more constituents and gets more people interested in election campaigns, possibly diluting the influence of special interests.  The bonus would be to “bring down the wall” between our schools and our community.