Jump to content


MP service - like jury service only longer.

Should we have 650 random people for MPs rather than elected ones?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we have 650 random people for MPs rather than elected ones?

    • Yes
      5
    • No
      9


Recommended Posts

If we picked 650 people randomly instead of going through all this electioneering rubbish would we be any worse off? We'd still be represented, we'd still have advisors and the civil service to keep it ticking only none of bobbins that goes with party politics. Maybe just have a it as a second chamber - it wouldn't be any less democratic than the one we've got now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we picked 650 people randomly instead of going through all this electioneering rubbish would we be any worse off? We'd still be represented, we'd still have advisors and the civil service to keep it ticking only none of bobbins that goes with party politics. Maybe just have a it as a second chamber - it wouldn't be any less democratic than the one we've got now.

 

As long as there is some pre-conditions. Don't want 650 stupid people running the country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as there is some pre-conditions. Don't want 650 stupid people running the country

 

We've got an fairly significant number who probably couldnt find their constituency on a map before they stood there for election.

 

That said, I take your point. Whats the bar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We've got an fairly significant number who probably couldnt find their constituency on a map before they stood there for election.

 

That said, I take your point. Whats the bar?

 

5 GCSEs grade A - C ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not opposed to the idea in principle, but the jury system in practice provides some pretty weird results in trials, and often fails to reach a verdict or understand the case. Government by jury would be fraught with corruption, lack of understanding or total disinterest - knowing that people would not need to be re-elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not opposed to the idea in principle, but the jury system in practice provides some pretty weird results in trials, and often fails to reach a verdict or understand the case. Government by jury would be fraught with corruption, lack of understanding or total disinterest - knowing that people would not need to be re-elected.

 

I think ours fraught with corruption definately and disinterest, certainly at local level with many MPs. If your MP is PM or chancellor, how often will they have surgeries etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think ours fraught with corruption definately and disinterest, certainly at local level with many MPs. If your MP is PM or chancellor, how often will they have surgeries etc?

 

I am not sure that corruption is widespread. But certainly there are those who use their position to influence their personal interest. They do have to declare their interests, but all too often are not called out on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think systems need to be tightened up.

 

With regards to the revolving door between the government and the board room, or expenses, or profiteering from second homes, or 3, 4, 5 different jobs; how many times have we heard "the rules allow it."

Perhaps the rules shouldn't allow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not opposed to the idea in principle, but the jury system in practice provides some pretty weird results in trials, and often fails to reach a verdict or understand the case. Government by jury would be fraught with corruption, lack of understanding or total disinterest - knowing that people would not need to be re-elected.

 

I think these are a few good points here. Also totally agree with the need to examine the rules re: revolving doors etc.

 

Having a bar set like Anna B suggested does also seem like a good idea, perhaps that could be a rule for all currently democratically elected MPs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper, and if NoTA gets most votes, then the MP is selected at random as suggested in OP.

Probably serve a shorter term: a year, perhaps two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we should have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper, and if NoTA gets most votes, then the MP is selected at random as suggested in OP.

Probably serve a shorter term: a year, perhaps two?

 

Well it takes a lot longer than a year to get anything done.

 

I htink its better to select them at random than from a list of people who have put themselves forward as you will get more centrist views. Else you'd get loads of extreme views on both sides of the spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is with a jury type system, there'd be no consistency in the ideas department, 1 person would allow something then the next wouldn't like it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.