Santo Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 I would prefer a system that selects MP's in the same way a jury is selected, so every five years a group of people from each area is randomly selected to serve on the local council, and they select one member to represent their area in parliament. Jeremy Clarkson suggested that ages ago in his column in the Times. Are you a reader too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 I would prefer a system that selects MP's in the same way a jury is selected, so every five years a group of people from each area is randomly selected to serve on the local council, and they select one member to represent their area in parliament. I don't like this idea. There's no real meritocracy involved. Meritocracy is the goal. Democracy does not produce perfect meritocracy but it's the closest anybody has ever come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil752 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 I would prefer a system that selects MP's in the same way a jury is selected, so every five years a group of people from each area is randomly selected to serve on the local council, and they select one member to represent their area in parliament. The US call it primaries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 I don't like this idea. There's no real meritocracy involved. Meritocracy is the goal. Democracy does not produce perfect meritocracy but it's the closest anybody has ever come. But if we can have people randomly selected with no meritocracy to sentence someone to spend the rest of their life in prison, then how is having a government made up in the same way a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 But if we can have people randomly selected with no meritocracy to sentence someone to spend the rest of their life in prison, then how is having a government made up in the same way a problem? It's a false analogy in my view. A jury has a specify job to do under supervision and guidance from a judge. All they have to to is answer one binary question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petminder Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 What would you do about that person's job? Some would need time out from work and that would be accommodated just like it is for maternity leave or jury service. Some would still be able to carry on doing their job. ---------- Post added 17-11-2016 at 15:30 ---------- Jeremy Clarkson suggested that ages ago in his column in the Times. Are you a reader too? I thought it was my idea, but I am happy to share it with Jeremy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 It's a false analogy in my view. A jury has a specify job to do under supervision and guidance from a judge. All they have to to is answer one binary question. Hmm, maybe. However, currently there are no qualifications required to become an MP. Some of them are clearly utterly incompetent at it, some appear to do the bare minimum to get paid and equally some even if I don't agree with their policies appear skilled and hardworking. Much like the electorate. If MPs had to pass a test before being allowed to stand then it would be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Some would need time out from work and that would be accommodated just like it is for maternity leave or jury service. Some would still be able to carry on doing their job. You think a company will keep a position open for 5 years? Or have I misunderstood your plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petminder Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 I don't like this idea. There's no real meritocracy involved. Meritocracy is the goal. Democracy does not produce perfect meritocracy but it's the closest anybody has ever come. A random and diverse selection of people from within the community would better represent that community, someone selected because of their allegiance to a political party represents the party first. ---------- Post added 17-11-2016 at 15:35 ---------- The US call it primaries To enter that race doesn't one need to be wealthy or aligned to a party? ---------- Post added 17-11-2016 at 15:39 ---------- It's a false analogy in my view. A jury has a specify job to do under supervision and guidance from a judge. All they have to to is answer one binary question. The selected representatives of the people would work under the guidance of civil servants. ---------- Post added 17-11-2016 at 15:43 ---------- You think a company will keep a position open for 5 years? Or have I misunderstood your plan? They would have no choice much like they have no choice now if someone is selected for jury service, has a baby or becomes sick, obviously they wouldn't be expected to pay the wage of their absent employee so they could employ a temp for the duration of their service. I'm sure their could also be some circumstances built in which would allow someone to decline their selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 The selected representatives of the people would work under the guidance of civil servants. Ministers have civil servants to guide them. MPs generally don't. Are you planning to hire more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now