Over the past few days, like many of you, I’ve been glued to the NFL draft board (Forbes’ Darren Heitner had great coverage here). It was exciting to see who was picked first (Houston took Jadeveon Clowney); who bit on Johnny Manziel (sorry, Cleveland), and where Michael Sam, the first openly gay player to be drafted in league history would go (St. Louis took him 249th).
Interest in the draft has been, as ESPN commentator Mel Kiper, Jr., explained, “through the roof” which is great for the NFL. But wouldn’t it be cool if we had the same level of enthusiasm on election night. What if Congressional elections were run like the NFL? I figure it would go a little something like this…
First, we know it would be huge. The NFL draft traditionally consists of seven rounds spread out over several days. Each round works out generally to 32 picks, one pick per team per round (more on maneuvers later). The math works out to 224 players though that number can fluctuate: this year, there were 256 picks.
Congress has more than twice that number of members to consider. The Senate consists of 100 members (two from each state) and the House of Representatives weighs in at 435 members (the number from each state is based on populations). That totals 535 members of Congress across 50 states. Since House and Senate members are elected to different terms, you could easily split the rounds and have two Senate rounds (one pick for each state) and eight House rounds (picks vary based on population). Like NFL teams, some states would have more than one pick in a round.
In the NFL, the team with the most miserable record (Texans won that distinction this year) has the first pick of each round. The winner of the Super Bowl (Seahawks beat down the Broncos, 43-8 in January) generally goes last. The idea is that the neediest team deserves the first, best shot at garnering a great player and so on.
In Congress, you’d have to figure out a similar order pattern. There are all kinds of categories to choose from but if it were up to me, I’d focus on economics. The state with the worst economic performance for the year – and thus, the most to gain – would go first. There are a number of indexes to choose from but for the sake of our hypothetical, I’m tapping the ALEC-Laffer State Economic State Competitiveness Index since it was released in April (coinciding with the draft preparations). According to the index, the state with the worst economic performance last year was Michigan, which would put it first in our Congressional draft. It would be followed, in order, by Ohio, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Illinois. The states which performed best would get the last picks which means that the bottom five would be, in order, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, and Texas.
And while the other teams in the NFL draft can move up or down the list based on playoff status, it would be most simple to have the states simply follow the list based on economic performance.
In the NFL, teams choose players based on evaluations of abilities, performance, and potential. Similarly, states could evaluate Congressional candidates on similar criteria – rather than TV ads and billboards.
In February, before the draft, the NFL holds a scouting combine. Players are invited to show up and run, pass and catch, demonstrating what makes them NFL material. Similarly, Congressional candidates could show up and demonstrate what makes them Senate or House material. What do they know about the Tax Code? How fast can they whip up a proposed budget? Can they dash down the halls of Capitol Hill in sufficient time to override a veto? These are the kinds of things states need to know.
Representatives from each state could compare notes, check out voting patterns, and assemble their top picks for office – just like they do in the NFL. You could compare all kinds of stats.
Take voting records, for example. Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s (R-NH) voting record is better than the average.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), in contrast, is below average.
Or numbers and types of committees. Rep. James Himes (D-CT) sits on the following committees:
- House Committee on Financial Services
- Member, Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises
- Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance
- House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
- Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
- Member, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence
In contrast, Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) sits on fewer committees but among them is the powerful House Committee on Appropriations:
- Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
- Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies
- Member, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
You could compare numbers of sponsored bills or success rates for passage (of the 8,263 bills and resolutions currently before the United States Congress, only about 5% will become law).
You could even compile draft cards to pin to your board like they do in the draft.
And I know what you’re thinking: what’s with the random candidate shuffle? Shouldn’t the candidate actually be from the state he or she is serving? While some members of Congress do serve the state where were born and raised, a number do not. Sen. John McCain (R) moved to Arizona in 1981 and ran for office the next year. Former Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) moved to New York in 2000, the same year she was elected to office. The reality is that national-level politics really aren’t as state issue-specific as we pretend except when it comes to divvying up the tax dollars – and then it’s really about paying back the voters, isn’t it? But what if finding solutions to problems was more about job performance than winning votes? What if it wasn’t a popularity contest – or a dollar game – but a focus on who had the best platform and work ethic? What if it all came down to who looks best on paper?
During the NFL draft, team management gathers in the War Room. Each team gets a shot at the clock. In the first round, teams have 15 minutes to make their choice. I know that seems like a short time frame but by the time of the draft, most teams already know who they want – as well as a list of alternates. That decision is eventually communicated to an NFL official (usually the Commissioner) who makes the announcement.
Similarly, a Congressional draft would require advanced preparation, too. None of this ripping a “how to vote” sheet out of the local paper or trying to remember who made the most impact on TV. There would be a measured pick list based on stats and performance criteria – and of course, alternates in case the favorite gets picked. In that event, you would get the next best candidate and not simply the next in line.
With each round in the draft, the time that the team has to make a decision is reduced – so teams have to be prepared. If you miss your turn, the next team can step up and make their selection. It keeps the process moving forward.
Think of what that would mean if we applied the same logic to Congress: No recounts. No run-offs. No hanging chads.
And while generally, only those with top football talent choose to enter the NFL draft (why enter if you won’t get picked?), there is occasionally a surprise: Dallas drafted Olympic track and field star Carl Lewis in 1984 (he never played).
The same could happen in a Congressional draft, too. While it’s true that incumbents tend to stack the cards at election time, newbies could throw their hats into the ring for consideration so long as they meet the eligibility criteria. For a Representative, that means, as per the Constitution: at least twenty-five years old, a U.S. citizen for the past seven years, and an inhabitant of the state they represent (er, we’d have to change that last part). For the Senate: at least 30 years old, a U.S. citizen for the past nine years, and an inhabitant of the state they represent (again, that would have to change).
And here’s the interesting part: in the NFL, drafted players are paid based on the position in which they were drafted. The first-round picks get paid the most and so on. In that way, it’s performance-based: you don’t get paid the big dollars just for getting picked. Wouldn’t that be an interesting take on Congressional pay?
And the bonus? Fewer attack ads on our television screens because the strategy would necessarily be more “pick me” than it would be “don’t pick the other guy.” It would be a nice change.
Of course, as great as the television coverage for something like this would be, I’m not seriously advocating for a Congressional draft – and yes, I realize there are some flaws in my comparisons (especially since established football players don’t have to go through the draft again as I propose incumbents do). But the idea of change? That, I’m serious about.
As the 2014 elections creep up on us, voters are increasingly weary of our do-nothing Congress, especially as it applies to our tax system. The last extensive overhaul of our tax system occurred nearly 30 years ago. Since that time, the Tax Code has grown more bloated, more complex, and more expensive to administer – the exact opposite of what voters say they want.
And although our Congress is talking tax reform, they’re not acting on it. There were three bills presented to the President from the House this week:
- H.R.3627. Kilah Davenport Child Protection Act of 2013
- H.R.4120. To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to extend the termination date
- H.R.4192. To amend the Act entitled “An Act to regulate the height of buildings in the District of Columbia” to clarify the rules of the District of Columbia regarding human occupancy of penthouses above the top story of the building upon which the penthouse is placed.
And here’s a sampling of what’s under consideration:
- H.R. 2548. The Electrify Africa Act of 2014, as amended
- H.Con.Res. 83, Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha I
- H.R. 863 To establish the Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Women’s History Museum Act of 2013, as amended
And let’s not forget the obligatory swipes at IRS:
- H. Res. 565. Calling on Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., to appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting of conservative non-profit groups by the Internal Revenue Service.
- H. Res. 574. Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives find Lois G. Lerner, Former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
I’m not saying that none of these bills or resolutions have merit. But I think we can tell by looking at the list that it is clear that tax reform isn’t going to be a priority for this Congress. It doesn’t have to be. There’s no sense of urgency because, as voters, we give points for talking about tax reform but not actually moving it forward.
Perhaps the draft system isn’t the best way to select a Congress. Maybe what we have in place is the best structure – after all, it’s largely remained the same for more than 100 years. But I think we all agree that something has to change if we want to see tax reform and other issues (immigration, maybe) become a priority. Otherwise, our Congress, instead of going for the deep ball this season, will simply keep handing it off.