Should there be an elected second chamber, and how should it be elected?

[burtabraham]

First past the post? Proportional Representation? Workers Councils with immediately-recallable representatives? Random selection via coin toss? Or maybe a Britain’s Got Talent-style dance contest?

My serious answer is PR, with people able to switch their vote at any time, and the distribution of seats being recalculated each month.

 

[Silas Loom]

Random selection for compulsory upper house service for a year, paid at MP’s salary. Once that’s completed, option to remain in office for a further four years if 90% of fellow upper house members vote in favour.

 

[weltweit]

Most democracies I think have two chambers so the question is just what kind of second chamber? Democratically elected is probably a popular option, certainly hereditary peers just don't tick the boxes. Nor political appointees. But what form of democracy I don't really know, and who would be the electorate for voting people into the chamber?

 

[weltweit]

Random selection for compulsory upper house service for a year, paid at MP’s salary. Once that’s completed, option to remain in office for a further four years if 90% of fellow upper house members vote in favour.

Something like Jury service perhaps?

 

[Silas Loom]

Something like Jury service perhaps?

Indeed.

 

[burtabraham]

Indeed.

A year seems pretty hard core. Would many people really want to do it? Or even be up to the task? What happens if someone says no, or just takes the money and spends their day at the pub (like I would)?

 

[burtabraham]

who would be the electorate for voting people into the chamber?

Any citizen 25 or over is my view. From what I understand, the brain is still developing until that point. It also gives people a bit of life experience in life before earning the responsibility of making such decisions.

 

[Silas Loom]

A year seems pretty hard core. Would many people really want to do it? Or even be up to the task? What happens if someone says no, or just takes the money and spends their day at the pub (like I would)?

The bars inside the Palace of Westminster are much better value than the unsubsidised ones outside it. You would pass pretty much unnoticed. Just choose whichever party whip you fancy following and go from the bar to the lobby when your pager goes off.

 

[burtabraham]

And yes, I did just write “life experience in life”

 

[burtabraham]

The bars inside the Palace of Westminster are much better value than the unsubsidised ones outside it. You would pass pretty much unnoticed. Just choose whichever party whip you fancy following and go from the bar to the lobby when your pager goes off.

I’m beginning to warm to your suggestions

 

[burtabraham]

I’m going to try and sell my idea though.

Imagine being able to punish our politicians each month. They would be perpetually racked with the fear of losing their seat, and mentally tortured as the polls shifted for or against them. It would be like a cat playing with its dinner. Isn’t that a glorious idea?

 

[dessiato]

There was a book which suggested politicians should be fitted with an explosive necklace. Once their popularity rating fell below a given point the necklace would explode, removing their head.

It's a good idea IMO

 

[CNT36]

I’m going to try and sell my idea though.

Imagine being able to punish our politicians each month. They would be perpetually racked with the fear of losing their seat, and mentally tortured as the polls shifted for or against them. It would be like a cat playing with its dinner. Isn’t that a glorious idea?

A flaw with that is parties would have lists and only those at the bottom of the list would have the shits up them.

 

[burtabraham]

A flaw with that is parties would have lists and only those at the bottom of the list would have the shits up them.

True, but that just means we can torture them one at a time. Gradually picking them off as the percentages shift, their panic intensifying as the tide of discontent rises around them.

 

[burtabraham]

100 seats only, by the way. Just to make it personal

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sortition, but a big number. More like 1,000 than 100. Perhaps even 10,000, with remote access to debates via zoom, etc.

And with teeth. Not a legislating chamber, but a chamber with the power to reject any act brought before it. Nobody allowed to vote without having attended the relevant debates, expert witnesses called in as and when required. As it would be selected by sortition, no need for all members always to participate in every debate.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No comedy option?

Option 7: It should be done the way it's done now.

 

[moochedit]

If we did the jury selection thing it would have to be done remotely online as you can't expect people from all over the uk to travel to london and live there for a month/year whatever. Otherwise i suspect the first act of the upper chamber would be to abolish itself

 

[Silas Loom]

Sortition, but a big number. More like 1,000 than 100. Perhaps even 10,000, with remote access to debates via zoom, etc.

And with teeth. Not a legislating chamber, but a chamber with the power to reject any act brought before it. Nobody allowed to vote without having attended the relevant debates, expert witnesses called in as and when required. As it would be selected by sortition, no need for all members always to participate in every debate.

One consequence of sortition is that newly-appointed legislators would need a lot of training, support (policy researchers from a central pool?), and guidance (much as magistrates rely heavily on the court’s legal advisors). So if there were more like 1,000 than 100, unkind commentators would call the scheme wasteful by comparison with the current arrangement.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If we did the jury selection thing it would have to be done remotely online as you can't expect people from all over the uk to travel to london and live there for a month/year whatever. Otherwise i suspect the first act of the upper chamber would be to abolish itself

I'd probably choose an opt-in system. Wouldn't want people there who don't want to be there, and I'd want people to be committing a sizeable chunk of time and effort to it. But yes, lots of possibilities for remote working and a generous pay packet for the year to encourage as many people as possible to apply. Only qualification would be to be a registered UK voter.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

One consequence of sortition is that newly-appointed legislators would need a lot of training, support (policy researchers from a central pool?), and guidance (much as magistrates rely heavily on the court’s legal advisors). So if there were more like 1,000 than 100, unkind commentators would call the scheme wasteful by comparison with the current arrangement.

Yes, they would need all of those things. It would cost a few million a year, maybe. Perhaps one or two star premier league footballers' wages. Not a lot really. But the support could be from a central pool, as you say, so the members would have someone they could contact to ask for a piece of research.

 

[moochedit]

A flaw with that is parties would have lists and only those at the bottom of the list would have the shits up them.

With party list systems it's the middle ranking ones with the shits up them as those at the bottom have no chance of being elected.

 

[burtabraham]

Sortition, but a big number. More like 1,000 than 100. Perhaps even 10,000, with remote access to debates via zoom, etc.

And with teeth. Not a legislating chamber, but a chamber with the power to reject any act brought before it. Nobody allowed to vote without having attended the relevant debates, expert witnesses called in as and when required. As it would be selected by sortition, no need for all members always to participate in every debate.

Sounds like a gargantuan bureaucracy would be required. One that would be completely unresponsive to changes in the peoples’ demands. Also, why random? What are the benefits?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sounds like a gargantuan bureaucracy would be required. One that would be completely unresponsive to changes in the peoples’ demands. Also, why random? What are the benefits?

Why? You have debates, which are attended either live or remotely. The members ask questions. These are answered. Expert witnesses are called in to committees, etc. That's how it works now. As for 'changes in the people's demands', these would be the people, in a large-enough number to be reasonably representative, but in this instance only taking decisions following deliberations.

Why random? Because it's the most democratic way to do it.

Garganguan bureaucracies are the kinds of things that constitute stuff like the Covid-19 inquiry, which cost 100s of millions of pounds, most of it going into the pockets of lawyers. I agree that this kind of massive expenditure is not justified. It isn't justified now yet is happening now. No reason a sensibly organised second chamber of randomly selected members would be on anything like that scale of wastefulness.

 

[moochedit]

Sounds like a gargantuan bureaucracy would be required. One that would be completely unresponsive to changes in the peoples’ demands. Also, why random? What are the benefits?

Random idea is to get normal people not professional politicians. I like the idea in theory although i'm not convinced it's thought through in practice.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

dunno really.

to some extent, the people who want to be an MP (or whatever) are in most cases the people who really shouldn't be allowed to be an MP (or whatever)

the current UK house of lords is an absolute bloody nonsense and should be abolished, preferably along with the monarchy.

but what would be better?

another lot of politicians elected at the same time on the same basis as MP's, and creating something that's going to have broadly the same political make up as the commons would be pointless.

intentionally electing the second chamber at 'mid term' of the commons, when people are going to be most likely to be pissed off with the government of the day will result in half the time the two chambers are likely to be at odds with each other and trying to block each other.

i can see the attractions of making it more like jury service, but can't help thinking a heck of a lot of people will not want to do it (like jury service only more so), and it would end up with a mix of retired people / seriously unemployed people / cranks. and something where people are forced to be there would not be constructive.

something elected on a form of PR has some attractions, but many forms of PR put too much power in party central offices to draw up a party list, and works against independent candidates, so would it (still) end up with a mix of has-beens and big donors? party list type PR fails the fifth of tony benn's five essential questions of democracy - "How do we get rid of you?"

having church of england bishops in there is ludicrous. gut feeling is no religious appointees at all, second best would be nominees from all religions / denominations with over X number of adherants, with number of seats / votes in proportion. although that leaves atheists out. but could be entertaining if more people start stating they are jedi or pastafarian or followers of ceiling cat come the next census.

germany's second chamber is delegates from the state / regional tier of government - which is a tier we don't really have in the UK now that many places don't have county councils any more, but wonder if that wouldn't be that bad an option.

 

[burtabraham]

Why? You have debates, which are attended either live or remotely. The members ask questions. These are answered. Expert witnesses are called in to committees, etc. That's how it works now. As for 'changes in the people's demands', these would be the people, in a large-enough number to be reasonably representative, but in this instance only taking decisions following deliberations.

Why random? Because it's the most democratic way to do it.

Here goes my attempt at a critique.

First off, without elections, there’s no accountability. Those that are randomly picked might not take their roles seriously. They might also lack the expertise needed, even with experts brought in.

Making sure everyone participates is another challenge. Not everyone has the tech or time to join Zoom debates. Plus, having a non-elected body with the power to reject laws could undermine democracy and clash with the elected chamber. PR just feels more democratic and responsive.

 

[Hotel Chocolate]

Turn it into a House of Experts.

 

[burtabraham]

Why? You have debates, which are attended either live or remotely. The members ask questions. These are answered. Expert witnesses are called in to committees, etc. That's how it works now. As for 'changes in the people's demands', these would be the people, in a large-enough number to be reasonably representative, but in this instance only taking decisions following deliberations.

Why random? Because it's the most democratic way to do it.

Garganguan bureaucracies are the kinds of things that constitute stuff like the Covid-19 inquiry, which cost 100s of millions of pounds, most of it going into the pockets of lawyers. I agree that this kind of massive expenditure is not justified. It isn't justified now yet is happening now. No reason a sensibly organised second chamber of randomly selected members would be on anything like that scale of wastefulness.

Why is a random selection democratic? Can I kick out any of these people that have been selected? If not, where is my voice? Sounds very alienating

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why is a random selection democratic? Can I kick out any of these people that have been selected? If not, where is my voice? Sounds very alienating

No, but they're not legislating. They are the revising chamber. The lower house is the elected house, with members who form governments who then formulate policies and propose legislation. They are delegates who have been given a mandate to make certain decisions and are held to account for those decisions at elections.