tinfoilhat   11 #1 Posted May 22, 2017 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 Share this content via...
Supertramp   10 #2 Posted May 22, 2017 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 Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #3 Posted May 22, 2017 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 Share this content via...
Anna B Â Â 1,365 #4 Posted May 22, 2017 We've got an fairly significant number who probably couldnt find their constituency on a map before they stood there for election. Â That said, I take your point. Whats the bar? Â 5 GCSEs grade A - C ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
biotechpete   10 #5 Posted May 22, 2017 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 Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #6 Posted May 22, 2017 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 Share this content via...
biotechpete   10 #7 Posted May 22, 2017 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 Share this content via...
Mister M Â Â 1,575 #8 Posted May 22, 2017 I think systems need to be tightened up. Â 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 Share this content via...
Eddie_shef   10 #9 Posted May 22, 2017 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 Share this content via...
Hairyloon   10 #10 Posted May 22, 2017 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 Share this content via...
Supertramp   10 #11 Posted May 22, 2017 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 Share this content via...
melthebell   862 #12 Posted May 22, 2017 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 Share this content via...