Originally Posted by Cinderella
The Future of Everything - Tim Dunlop
Voting as a way of choosing politicians dates to the 18th century, the time of the American and French revolutions, and there is little doubt that the leaders of these revolutions chose voting precisely as a means of exerting elite control over the political process.
Yes, I can see how such a system might make our democracy more democratic!
However, would replacing our representatives in parliament, who are currently experienced in the art of politics, with men and women off the streets be necessarily a working solution?
Would our replacement 'politicians' be up to the job? What sort of people would we choose? Businessmen? Trendy-lefty teachers? Union shop stewards? UKIP members? Struggling single women with seven children?
You see the potential problems?
Perhaps a more workable solution might be to replace the useless old-people's home on the other side of the Palace of Westminster with a sortitionally-elected body.
The Commons could discuss matters first, as at present, and the ideas they arrive at could then pass to the 'Lords' (or 'People's Parliament') for them to agree or disagree with the proposals.
The 'Sortition' parliament would be less likely to initiate
proposals, as that would require a majority decision and there's no way of guessing who would agree with whom.
But if they were given the right to decide democratically within themselves on whether a Bill should be passed or rejected, that could relate to a decision by the country's population in general as to whether they really want what the Commons propose.
If rejected, the Bill would go back to the Commons for alteration, as at present but with the difference that the Lords are far more likely to be led entirely by their own self interest.
Perhaps others might comment on the viability of this idea or, preferably, come up with a better idea.