Popping its head up every once in awhile is the bald faced fact that if any of our representatives want to "vote their conscience," and it happens to differ from what "the party" wants, then that representative is in serious trouble. The party can turn against him, withhold funds during the next campaign, support his opponent in the next primaries, and do other things to make life miserable or cost him his job.

Our two party cult system has evolved into a form of government that more closely resembles an Oligarchy than it does the democratically elected Republic our forefathers left us. The first elections held in this country fielded something like a dozen candidates supported by a dozen different organizations or backers. Doesn't that tell you something?

As it is now, we've got a situation where the majority of eligible voters in this country don't even bother to go to the polls to vote for anyone, and almost everyone is unhappy with government. A situation where candidates must spend at least a year raising money, courting the media, and making certain they fair well with their party's political action groups. Elections where money rules the roost.

When it comes right down to it, how different is a two party system from a one party dictatorship or banana republic? And isn't weighing the issues and voting one's conscience the fundamental reason we have representatives in the first place? Isn't that why the public sends them to Washington? Where did using judgement get lost?

With all the checks and balances to passing new law inherent in our original form of government, how did we ever homogenize it down to only two opposing ideologies? When did independent thinking and weighing what's good for the people give way to two cults fighting it out like teams on a football field or basketball court? This isn't a sport or game, although it often resembles a Vance Packard lesson in back stabbing and in-fighting in the quest for power.

So what's really lost by one member of the Senate becoming the second or third independent in Congress? What is it going to change that should be important to the people?

Take an example. We've had arguments over reforming Social Security for at least three years now. A situation where the major problem is that the government steals the surpluses generated by the only smoothly running operation in Washington. And we've had so-called "lock-box" bills pass the House of Representatives by phenomenal votes of 416-to-12, 420-to-2, and 407-to-2 only to die in the Senate in the hands of a democratic minority.

It only takes 40 percent of the Senate to stop passage of any bill. So, what's all the commotion about the Senate moving from a 50-50 party split where the Republican Vice President can decide the vote, to a 51-49 split? All the republicans have to do is the same thing the democrats have been doing for the last three years. Is that such a great disaster for the republicans?

What's more, if the Clinton Presidency has taught us anything, it should be that the President can pass more law by executive order than we need. If it wasn't for all the picayune bills Congress does manage to pass, naming monuments and libraries and such, laws passed by executive order would probably outweigh those taking the Constitutional route.

So, what have the republicans lost by one man's deserting the party, dropping from the team or the cult? Becoming an independent. If anything, there should be more independents in Congress if they are the ones who vote their conscience. And how about some Libertarians or third and fourth party candidates. Maybe we should draft people to serve in Washington for one or two terms. Let's throw everybody's Social Security number in a giant bowl and have a huge lotto event where names are drawn one night in November in each state. No campaigning. No money spent except for the single event. Pick 435 names for the House of Representatives and 100 names for the Senate. Then, have a super-lotto drawing for President and Vice President.

After all, if we can randomly select juries to vote on life and death or matters of huge financial settlements, then we certainly ought to be able to randomly select people to vote on the sort of matters handled by Congress.

Would it be any worse than what we've got now? I'll take the consciences of randomly selected citizens over cult politics any day. Especially if the responsibility of making choices is forced upon ordinary citizens with common sense.