A selected Parliament

Rabble Rabble

As well as democracy Athens used to select people for some public offices. The positions rotated, and people were chosen randomly. By Lot. Like a Jury service.

I think we should select the upper house. 100 members. Residence required, not citizenship ( will explain this later).

Pros.

1) Would represent the nation, in all its proportionality. 50% female. 10% unemployed ( at selection). 5% gay. The private sector will get a look in at 60%. 5% immigrant - for that reason I eschew citizenship.
2) Would have "normal" people in Office.

Cons

1) normal people are not very bright. On average, very average.
2) normal people are not that good at public speaking.

To rectify the cons I would make sure that to be selected you need to pass a compulsory leaving cert course in politics, with some economics. You can do it as an adult. If hard enough it gets rid of the bottom 20-25% in IQ.

Non-public speakers can get a designated speaker to speak for them in the parliament. They must write the speech.

I would also ban anyone who has gone for election to the Dail or local authority.

This parliament will not be the major power in the land - it will be the upper house with the powers of the existing Seanad. People who serve on it can be on Oireachtas committees and so on , whatever the seanad does..

to sugar the pill, everybody selected will get a pension at the end of the office, if they attend enough votes etc. To be decided.

What say you.

WeeBushy

Cons:
Removes the possibility of the best people being given the job.

Not a good idea at all, imo.

Rabble Rabble

WeeBushy wrote: »

Cons:
Removes the possibility of the best people being given the job.

Not a good idea at all, imo.

Of the 100, 10 would be in the top 10%, or better, were we to do the pruning with the civics exam.

Are all present day politicains the best of their generation?

WeeBushy

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Of the 100, 10 would be in the top 10%, or better, were we to do the pruning with the civics exam.

Are all present day politicains the best of their generation?

Probably not, but your idea removes that possibility, or anything approaching it, from happening.

ei.sdraob

WeeBushy wrote: »

Probably not, but your idea removes that possibility, or anything approaching it, from happening.

It also removes political dynasties from forming, the current crop of politicians are disgrace, political office should be civic service to the nation not a way to line pockets and secure a cushy pension.

very good and "fair" proposal @OP

WeeBushy wrote: »

Probably not, but your idea removes that possibility, or anything approaching it, from happening.

Considering that people will be chosen at random with a test filtering out the lower quartile (or so), then that would ensure on average that the politicians are literary more smarter than general population. Some cultures such as the Chinese have for centuries performed strict and very hard entrance tests for any people wishing to become part of the bureaucracy and civil service.

You can also link any pension received from doing this to the performance of the country during the term and period X after (could also be implemented for current system)

WeeBushy

So we give up the idea that we can improve our current level, and settle for an consistently a bit above the national average standard? Maybe I'm too idealistic, but that just doesn't appeal to me.

ei.sdraob

consistently above average, you can increase the above part by raising the bar as suits

in contrast with consistently below average politicians we have

WeeBushy

Fair enough... that could be a good system.

Not sure if I'm fully comfortable with a parliament that has powers, albeit limited, that isn't democratically selected however. But yeah, you are right, it would provide a higher quality of people than we currently have.

ei.sdraob

WeeBushy wrote: »

Fair enough... that could be a good system.

Not sure if I'm fully comfortable with a parliament that has powers, albeit limited, that isn't democratically selected however. But yeah, you are right, it would provide a higher quality of people than we currently have.

Yes I agree with that

bmaxi

The Senate, as it stands, is powerless. Unless I am missing something, why replace one useless talking shop with another, no matter how more acceptable it's constitution?

Denerick

This concept looks neat on paper, but it will inevitably result in a permanant caste of civil servants waging de facto political power, while joe public looks forward to the equivilent of the national lottery and nodding his head as his nearest civil servant or business associate demands. The entire plan is bollox. There is a reason why parliamentary democracy evolved over 500+ years, its an evolutionary process, reform and change is ongoing and will meet the problems of the age. But to completely abandon the principle of elections to replace it with a rabble of citizens is madness.

3DataModem

Denerick wrote: »

inevitably result in a permanant caste of civil servants waging de facto political power

Precicely.

hallelujajordan

In terms of electing people to the upper house, I like this idea . . It seems fair, and representative. . . And it's got to be better than the current system where only certain special universities get to vote and the Taoiseach gets a bunch of crony appointments . .

Godge

Ok, but would membership be compulsory ala jury duty?

Why would someone with their own business give it up for Seanad duty?
Why would someone earning more than the Seanad paycheque give their job up?

Rabble Rabble

Some answers:

1) It wont be a talking shop as people dont even have to publicly speak. They wont be party members either.
2) It will be compulsory - in my scheme - with opt outs for certain groups, as with Juries. A heart surgeon would be able to get out of it.
3) The duties will not be onerous - 2,3 days a week so business men, and most self employed, can continue with their job. Since it doesnt really sit in the summer it is an 10 month job.
4) The pension will be £10K a year rising to £20K depending on age. The idea is to reward people for showing up and doing good work. You get this pension if you have contributed something to the lifetime of the parliament.
5) The civil service will have little to do with this body as it is parliament, not government. The cabinet can pick people from the upper house but that would be rare.


So the upper house can delay, and amend, lower house bills but I would give the lower house a veto after a few attempts. The upper house can present private members bills to itself, and with enough votes to the lower house.

I would ban upper house members from taking any money from anybody - that would be in the nature of a bribe since they dont need campaign contributions - however they can be lobbied to a certain extent. If an IT manager is in the parliament then he will represent IT workers to a degree, and can meet with any organisation of IT workers, or whatever.

He then may present a bill related to IT. A teenager ( 18+) may present a bill opposing draconian penalties against illegal downloads. The idea is to represent your interests, and by extension, the interests of the class of workers, age group or businesses you belong to.

Remember 50% female. 60% private sector. Very few lawyers. Fewer publicans. Proportional number of teachers.

Not representatives of the people, but more representative of them.

Denerick

This sounds like Mussolini's or Eoin O'Duffys bastardisation of syndicalism. Its fraught with danger, and I can see a few intelligent public servants running rings around joe public every time a new parliament is enacted.

Rabble Rabble

Denerick wrote: »

This sounds like Mussolini's or Eoin O'Duffys bastardisation of syndicalism. Its fraught with danger, and I can see a few intelligent public servants running rings around joe public every time a new parliament is enacted.

it has nothing to do with syndacalism. Trade Unions have nothing to do with this.

I already answered the question about public servants - and that argument is a mistaken understanding of the difference between government and parliament. The upper house will have nothing to do with public servants - that is the job risk of the Government and ministers with portfolios.

As for the danger - dont see it. I may be wrong but would of want elaboration of the danger.

By the way, read what I say. You failed to understand - twice - that this is a parliament, not a government.

But to completely abandon the principle of elections to replace it with a rabble of citizens is madness.

Who is completely abandoning anything? It is an upper house, not a lower house, not both. With less powers than the lower house.

The rabble of citizens is telling, however. I bet there were similar arguments about parliaments, and indeed Juries, back in the day.

RandomName2

WeeBushy wrote: »

Cons:
Removes the possibility of the best people being given the job.

You might just want to rethink that one laddy

Biffo the best finance minister ever?