Get rid of politicians - a new parliament

[Moulin Yarns]

Now I've got your attention http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/winky.gif

I have come across this interesting article that proposes a random selection of ordinary people becomes the parliament.


Imagine if we chose a bunch of randomly selected people, put them in parliament, and asked them to make the laws for the next couple of years. We could easily stratify the selection to match the demographic and socio-economic profile of the country so that it would be a truly representative sample. Fifty per cent of the legislators would be women. There would be many young people, some old people, a few rich people, but mostly just normal everyday people like you and me.
This randomly selected group would be a microcosm of society which would simulate how we would all think, if we were given the time, information and a good process to come to the moral crux of political decisions. And although you may not be selected, there would be someone of your age, someone of your gender, someone from your area, and someone with your background in the parliament. It would be a mirror of society.

http://bright-green.org/2017/05/17/sortition-the-way-to-remake-democracy-for-the-21st-century/

An interesting concept which would possibly mean the end to this forum :greengrin

I look forward to hearing what others think.

[pacoluna]

Now I've got your attention :wink:

I have come across this interesting article that proposes a random selection of ordinary people becomes the parliament.


Imagine if we chose a bunch of randomly selected people, put them in parliament, and asked them to make the laws for the next couple of years. We could easily stratify the selection to match the demographic and socio-economic profile of the country so that it would be a truly representative sample. Fifty per cent of the legislators would be women. There would be many young people, some old people, a few rich people, but mostly just normal everyday people like you and me.
This randomly selected group would be a microcosm of society which would simulate how we would all think, if we were given the time, information and a good process to come to the moral crux of political decisions. And although you may not be selected, there would be someone of your age, someone of your gender, someone from your area, and someone with your background in the parliament. It would be a mirror of society.

http://bright-green.org/2017/05/17/sortition-the-way-to-remake-democracy-for-the-21st-century/

An interesting concept which would possibly mean the end to this forum :greengrin

I look forward to hearing what others think.

Cant open the link but I believe its called sortition governance. It was common in Italy prior to unification. The problem is there is no liability or legitimacy.

[The_Exile]

I would make it illegal to support Hearts and would extend the weekend from 2 days to 3 days. I would abolish currency and would employ everyone in the country to focus their energies into building a warp drive. Then I would sell our Nukes to North Korea and spend the money on a huge water park but instead of water, have it filled with Quavers and Skittles. If that doesn't sounds like a better world then I dunno what else to say really.

In all seriousness though, this wouldn't work as the vast vast vast majority of people are erses and need to be silenced, not given a voice FFS :greengrin

[NYHibby]

The US is a perfect example of why making a random person with no qualifications the leader of a country is a bad idea.

Edit: This system would probably make the country less democratic. The result would likely be a further concentration of power in career civil servants.

[Moulin Yarns]

Cant open the link but I believe its called sortition governance. It was common in Italy prior to unification. The problem is there is no liability or legitimacy.

It is Sortition, and there are examples of it in current use across the world.

[NYHibby]

It is Sortition, and there are examples of it in current use across the world.

What country actually uses this demographics based selection method to actually govern itself? The Wikipedia article doesn't list any.

[Moulin Yarns]

What country actually uses this demographics based selection method to actually govern itself? The Wikipedia article doesn't list any.

I didn't say it is used to 'govern' but there are examples of its use in the article if you are interested.



There are simply too many examples: Ireland.... Australia............. Iceland............. Canada............ G1000s – groups of up to 1000 randomly selected people coming together – have been held in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and the first one in the UK will be held in Cambridge this September.....

[Moulin Yarns]

The US is a perfect example of why making a random person with no qualifications the leader of a country is a bad idea.

Edit: This system would probably make the country less democratic. The result would likely be a further concentration of power in career civil servants.

Read the article, it Couldn't happen as you envisage.

[High-On-Hibs]

It would be rigged. We'd be told that it is completely "random".... but it would be about as "random" as The Rangers consistantly drawing home games in cup matches.

[Moulin Yarns]

An interesting concept which would possibly mean the end to this forum :greengrin



I take it back NYHibby is making a good fist of keeping it going :wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

It would be rigged. We'd be told that it is completely "random".... but it would be about as "random" as The Rangers consistantly drawing home games in cup matches.

Selection like jury duty?? You don't opt in, but you might be able to opt out.

[High-On-Hibs]

Selection like jury duty?? You don't opt in, but you might be able to opt out.

With many poor sods "opting out" without even knowing it. :wink:

[NYHibby]

I didn't say it is used to 'govern' but there are examples of its use in the article if you are interested.

This country already uses those type of consultative bodies in various places. None of those examples support the idea that this system could actually work as proposed.


Read the article, it Couldn't happen as you envisage.

I did read the article and it's talk of the body being a deliberative body rather than an opinion poll. The current parliament already has all of those advantages listed in the article. However, rather than having individuals selected by society as being "good" at deliberating, you are randomly picking people. How are random people better at this task than individuals specifically selected for the task by the same society?

Inherent in this idea is that voters cannot select people to represent them appropriately. This proposal is literally based on the idea that people are bad at making decisions. Yet the people holding that view then want those people to make more decisions.

[ballengeich]

I've a feeling this method of selecting office holders dates back to the origins of democracy in ancient Greece.

[Moulin Yarns]

I've a feeling this method of selecting office holders dates back to the origins of democracy in ancient Greece.

It says as much in the article

[Moulin Yarns]

Other examples of 'alternative' politics

http://www.syp.org.uk/

http://www.ukyouthparliament.org.uk/

[NYHibby]

It says as much in the article

Which it incredibly misrepresents. Athens did not randomly choose people from the general population to run the city state. In practice the Greek equivalent of the aristocracy chose the members of the council. The system could better be described as very strict term limits.

Attendance in the larger assembly was based on class. Anyone qualified could attend. Again no element of random selection.

[One Day Soon]

Now I've got your attention :wink:

I have come across this interesting article that proposes a random selection of ordinary people becomes the parliament.


Imagine if we chose a bunch of randomly selected people, put them in parliament, and asked them to make the laws for the next couple of years. We could easily stratify the selection to match the demographic and socio-economic profile of the country so that it would be a truly representative sample. Fifty per cent of the legislators would be women. There would be many young people, some old people, a few rich people, but mostly just normal everyday people like you and me.
This randomly selected group would be a microcosm of society which would simulate how we would all think, if we were given the time, information and a good process to come to the moral crux of political decisions. And although you may not be selected, there would be someone of your age, someone of your gender, someone from your area, and someone with your background in the parliament. It would be a mirror of society.

http://bright-green.org/2017/05/17/sortition-the-way-to-remake-democracy-for-the-21st-century/

An interesting concept which would possibly mean the end to this forum :greengrin

I look forward to hearing what others think.


Worst. Idea. Ever.

Our politicians are uniformly crap. But who put them there? Bad enough that the electorate choose the likes of Trump, Sturgeon, May and Farage. Worse if they were directly in power themselves.

[snooky]

Nothing better than a damned good respected dictator.
He/she might not get it right all of the time but they would sure get things done and bypass all the parliamentary BS.
:stirrer:

[Colr]

Nothing better than a damned good respected dictator.
He/she might not get it right all of the time but they would sure get things done and bypass all the parliamentary BS.
:stirrer:

Would the trains run on time?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Nothing better than a damned good respected dictator.
He/she might not get it right all of the time but they would sure get things done and bypass all the parliamentary BS.
:stirrer:

Seems to work for China...

We will have to see how it pans out for the USA...

[Hibernia&Alba]

Now I've got your attention :wink:

I have come across this interesting article that proposes a random selection of ordinary people becomes the parliament.


Imagine if we chose a bunch of randomly selected people, put them in parliament, and asked them to make the laws for the next couple of years. We could easily stratify the selection to match the demographic and socio-economic profile of the country so that it would be a truly representative sample. Fifty per cent of the legislators would be women. There would be many young people, some old people, a few rich people, but mostly just normal everyday people like you and me.
This randomly selected group would be a microcosm of society which would simulate how we would all think, if we were given the time, information and a good process to come to the moral crux of political decisions. And although you may not be selected, there would be someone of your age, someone of your gender, someone from your area, and someone with your background in the parliament. It would be a mirror of society.

http://bright-green.org/2017/05/17/sortition-the-way-to-remake-democracy-for-the-21st-century/

An interesting concept which would possibly mean the end to this forum :greengrin

I look forward to hearing what others think.

It's certainly an interesting idea. Would the participants be chosen via something like a lottery? Problem could be that random representatives runs the risk of people totally unqualified or unsuitable being placed into such positions. How could we avoid that?

Wouldn't we be better cutting out the middle men and middle women and going to a form of anarchism? Rather than tweaking the way ruling elites are chosen, might abolition be preferable if we're serious about true representation? There's another can of worms opened :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

It's certainly an interesting idea. Would the participants be chosen via something like a lottery? Problem could be that random representatives runs the risk of people totally unqualified or unsuitable being placed into such positions. How could we avoid that?

Wouldn't we be better cutting out the middle men and middle women and going to a form of anarchism? Rather than tweaking the way ruling elites are chosen, might abolition be preferable if we're serious about true representation? There's another can of worms opened :greengrin

Some might argue we already have unsuitable and unqualified representation. But I couldn't comment.