Sortition and Democracy and Meritocarcy
Sortition sounds OK as an alternative method of electing MPs compared to our current system, and probably would work. But you’d also need put in place the same kind of procedures as for jury selection. The right to refuse to stand and the ability for the public to appeal against a selection if they believe the person to be a bad choice. Then you’ve got to ensure that certain types of people aren’t selected. You wouldn’t want psychopaths to be selected would you. After all that you’d end up with what we’ve got already, bar a few minor changes.
What’s wrong with meritocracy?
Candidates for election should show why they are worth electing and can do the job. They should not be selected by a small group of people which means that the general public don’t really get a choice. So open primaries should exist.
But to ensure that it doesn’t matter who is selected, the job description should be very limited. No ability to create laws, only to represent their locality. So basically a talking shop. Out of which might come pronouncements and suggestions which would be put forward to another branch of the government, these not elected but hereditary. That way they don’t need to pander to an electorate and can base their decisions on the long term rather than till the next election. But again, this lot can only put forward the suggestions into referendums as to whether a new law should be created.
If you might notice, the ability to create laws is severely restricted. We don’t need 3,000 new laws. Existing laws cover pretty much everything already. Such things as property rights, human rights, etc are pretty basic. Everything else is twiddly bits on top.
Laws can be created more easily at the local level. This will be done by locally elected people who live locally and are known locally. Yes you will end up in a post code lottery as to whether the importation of Brazil nuts, chillis, pistachios from Iran is legal or not, or whether you get jailed for speeding or just fined. But then if a local law is popular and works, it will be picked up, if not the local people can quickly and easily change it. Also if people find a particular law offensive or unworkable they can also move to an area which has the laws which they do like. A free market for laws in effect.
But what happens if one area’s laws are very popular and everyone flocks there? The area will want to expand. Will it declare war on a neighbouring region and force their laws on that area or will the popular laws get adopted by other regions who see it’s popular and want all the people to come to them too. The later in my view.
I can see that you might point to the current draconion methods of some councils and ask if they should be allowed total control. But the point is that the councils are using laws handed to them by the national government and abusing their responsibilities. Look at how the implemented RIPA. But then they didn’t have to answer the electorate because in many councils, councillors don’t have much power. Only the salaried staff do, like the CEO.
I can also see you point out that people don’t find it easy to move out of an area. They might have lived there all their lives and have strong family commitments. But the point is that some people can move quite easily. Especially if they rent their home.
So, have I solved the whole problem with democracy or is it all pie in the sky? Is it something to run with or is it stuck in the starting blocks?
SBML
Written after reading this comment by JimS and Thad’s post.
-
1
June 9, 2012 at 08:55 -
I would certainly agree that many of our problems stem from the centralising affect of government and the obsession with footling new legislation. Can anybody name significant legislation from the past 50 years? Nothing like the 19th century highlights.
One small point- true, councillors have few powers as individuals, none I think lawfully outside the council chamber. That does not stop them abusing their position; not necessarily for personal gain, more because they think they know best and can get away with it. Most of us do not know what is permitted or what actually happens. A council 12 miles from where you live is still remote.
We are also still left with the problem of the officials, their competence and their ‘pliability’.
I rather like the idea of councillors being picked like jury. Perhaps we could trial that at the Parish Council first. With compulsory training and briefing of course, so that would be an immediate improvement. -
2
June 9, 2012 at 10:49 -
I reckon that the purpose of electing an MP was a compromise between genuine direct (issue based) democracy and a full dictatorship. It was relevant to the times, it was difficult to move between a far away constituency and London, so we sent our (hopefully) likeminded representative.
There really is no need to do that anymore, but it is important to ensure that the position is filled by someone who does it almost under duress, not as a career path, rather as something that has the potential to stall a career.
But the really important thing is that MP’s do not get to be re-elected/appointed and that the general public have the ability to force an MP’s hand, at will. The idea is to remove the corruption, the naked ambition and the graft from this odious business.
-
3
June 9, 2012 at 13:14 -
Perhaps one way of electing MPs is to have a limitation on how many Parliamentary sessions they can sit at any one time. In the USA, the President can serve only 2 terms. Perhaps if this was introduced here, it would stop the long term government by one particular party leader – the Blair years, where he was so blase about being ‘the government’ that he more or less did what he wanted, irrespective of the consequences. The danger is that the new devil may be worse than the devil we know – the Brown period for example. The type of Government we have in this country is not perfect, but until we ca come up with a better system, this will have to do. As an afterthought, what about the ‘benevolent dictatorship’ government system introduced by Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore during and after the Indonesian Confrontation? Free medical care, non-politically biased education, tax allowances and subsidised housing for families with up to 2 children (want any more then they have to be fully paid for) with the proviso that any acts of terrorism against the Government means the cancellation of everything – for every family member. However, that could lead to another discussion. I lived there during that time and it appeared to work.
-
4
June 9, 2012 at 13:38 -
Do we actually need a ‘government’ in this day and age, or for that matter the bloated civil service?
It should be possible to run a country very like a business, note I said ‘like’. With our modern communications we could have the Monarch and a ‘board of directors’ that look after the day to day running of the country, who put to the people any major decision and the people vote on it. If any proposal doesn’t get, say 75% of the vote or less than 80% of the registered voters vote then it is rejected.
The only ‘disadvantage’ of this system would be the necessity that those voting be tested on their knowledge and understanding of English language and history and basic science.
We have the technical ability and infrastructure to make secure voting a reality and the testing of those eligible to vote does away with the ‘bought postal vote syndrome’ and other such problems.
The testing also has a secondary advantage – raising the education standard of the nation. You want to vote, fine – pass the test, can’t pass the test – go to remedial classes and learn then take the test again. That way you get an informed electorate that are aware of what they are voting about.
Using this system I could see tax being reduced to a flat 2% rate and the welfare system being reduced to what it was intended – a final resort not a way of life. There would be other advantages including the fact the country would cease to be seen as a soft touch by everyone.
-
5
June 9, 2012 at 23:01 -
@Ivan:-
“Do we actually need a ‘government’ in this day and age, or for that matter the bloated civil service?”Undoubtedly not – but we’re stuck with them, short of violent revolution – see Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy
Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people”:
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
-
6
June 10, 2012 at 11:21
-
-
7
June 9, 2012 at 14:40 -
These debates always remind me of that Billy Connelly phrase “anyone who desires to be a politician is sufficient reason to ban them from being one”. can we backdate it.
-
9
June 9, 2012 at 20:47 -
XX No ability to create laws, only to represent their locality. So basically a talking shop. Out of which might come pronouncements and suggestions which would be put forward to another branch of the government, these not elected but hereditary.XX
It’s called the E.U Parliament, isn’t it?
-
10
June 10, 2012 at 11:17
-
-
11
June 9, 2012 at 22:58 -
make assassination legal. The popular would live. The rest would die. That should smarten up the politicians.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }