Hairyloon Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Quite a lot of people are not entirely happy with our current system of parliamentary election: the referendum on AV was a response to growing calls for reform, but clearly the government do not want reform: the only option they gave us was one they knew that nobody wanted. I think the main problem with the current system is that the MP's are too far removed from the people they supposedly represent. A suggestion came up in the "Occupy Sheffield Cathedral" thread, which I like. It is quite similar to one proposed by Jim Hacker in "Yes, Prime Minister". The idea is quite simple. At its core is the fact that people can only deal properly with a relatively small number of other people. So basically, a group of around 250 people elect one of their number to be a representative for the regional council, where 250 representatives elect one of their number to be an MP. The real beauty of this idea is that nobody is more than two steps removed from their MP: they actually know someone who actually knows him. Discus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 So basically, a group of around 250 people elect one of their number to be a representative for the regional council, where 250 representatives elect one of their number to be an MP. The real beauty of this idea is that nobody is more than two steps removed from their MP: they actually know someone who actually knows him. Not a new idea, at all. See the Five Books of Moses, re the pyramidic administrative structure suggested by Jethro (father-in-law of Moses). See Exodus 18:21/22: 21. But you shall choose out of the entire nation men of substance, G-d fearers, men of truth, who hate monetary gain, and you shall appoint over them [israel] leaders over thousands, leaders over hundreds, leaders over fifties, and leaders over tens. 22. And they shall judge the people at all times, and it shall be that any major matter they shall bring to you, and they themselves shall judge every minor matter, thereby making it easier for you, and they shall bear [the burden] with you. In this context, 'judging' includes all administrative aspects. Each group of ten has a leader, each group of five such leaders has a leader, each pair of such leaders has a leader, and each group of ten such leaders has a leader. Unpaid, by the way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoPro Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 The idea is quite simple. At its core is the fact that people can only deal properly with a relatively small number of other people. So basically, a group of around 250 people elect one of their number to be a representative for the regional council, where 250 representatives elect one of their number to be an MP. Gadaffi's "Third International Theory" In the proposed Jamahiriya, the entire population is divided into People's Congresses, which elect the People's Committees, which in turn form the second round of the People's Congresses, which elect the State Committees, which fullfil the function of state administration. Issues considered at the People's Congresses are finally formulated each year at the General People's Congress. Accordingly, the outcomes and decisions of the General Congress are brought to the lower levels in the reverse order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Quite a lot of people are not entirely happy with our current system of parliamentary election: the referendum on AV was a response to growing calls for reform, but clearly the government do not want reform: the only option they gave us was one they knew that nobody wanted. I think the main problem with the current system is that the MP's are too far removed from the people they supposedly represent. A suggestion came up in the "Occupy Sheffield Cathedral" thread, which I like. It is quite similar to one proposed by Jim Hacker in "Yes, Prime Minister". The idea is quite simple. At its core is the fact that people can only deal properly with a relatively small number of other people. So basically, a group of around 250 people elect one of their number to be a representative for the regional council, where 250 representatives elect one of their number to be an MP. The real beauty of this idea is that nobody is more than two steps removed from their MP: they actually know someone who actually knows him. Discus... Would this mean we'd be paying for a lot more politicians to eat expensive lunches and quaff alcohol, whilst getting nothing done other than them getting fatter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Gadaffi's "Third International Theory" So he got it from the Torah. That's OK, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Would this mean we'd be paying for a lot more politicians to eat expensive lunches and quaff alcohol, whilst getting nothing done other than them getting fatter? No- see the end of my post #3. And Exodus 18:21 ['...men of truth, who hate monetary gain...'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampersand Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 No- see the end of my post #3. And Exodus 18:21 ['...men of truth, who hate monetary gain...'] that narrows the pool of candidates down a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 No- see the end of my post #3. And Exodus 18:21 ['...men of truth, who hate monetary gain...'] And back to the real world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 Not a new idea, at all. See the Five Books of Moses, re the pyramidic administrative structure suggested by Jethro (father-in-law of Moses). I did not claim it was a new idea: Jim Hacker was 1988. Would this mean we'd be paying for a lot more politicians to eat expensive lunches and quaff alcohol, whilst getting nothing done other than them getting fatter? If your group are happy to buy lunch for your representative, then that is up to you. The rep would be accountable to the group for his expenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 And back to the real world! Yes, but people elected to office in the real world really ought to be really honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.