Dreaming of the Electionless, Politics Free World

| | Comments (2)

Tony Blair's election victory completed the trifecta with him being the last of the main protagonists of the Iraqi war to regain office. It wasn't much of a choice for the UK voters. The economy's going well under the Labour administration, and the Tory opposition was always vocal in its support for the UK's involvement in Iraq, not to mention all the bad memories from when they were last in government. Is it any wonder that around half the population didn't bother to vote?

The UK population's disengagement from politics shown in this election, and similar disinterest displayed in many other western countries, begs the question whether it would be possible to have fair and effective government without the downside of the political process. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have government without career politicians, political parties, and tedious election campaigns?

Yes, I'm dreaming, but I promise I'll wake up soon.

There was a concept described in the comic book movie "Star Ship Troopers" where, to gain 'citizenship' and thereby, the right to vote, you had to join and do time in the military forces. Obligations were met to gain the privilege of having a say in the way the place is run. Yes, our world is not threatened by giant ant like aliens, and I'm not suggesting that we should be encouraging the population into uniform, but perhaps there's something in the thought that we could encourage ordinary people to take on the obligation to actually be the government, rather than just vote for a bunch of professionals to do the job for us.

Imagine the population could be encouraged to register in a government ballot to select members of parliament. If your number comes up, you must spend a fixed term as a member of parliament. The ballot would happen every year, and the proportion of those whose terms have completed would leave to be replaced by the new members. If the parliamentary term is for three years, then one third of the members leave every year. Parliamentarians would only ever server one term.

There'd be no election campaigns, parties or professional pollies. The ballot, being random, would ensure that the proportions of views and attitudes within the parliament would be proportional to the general population .... well, proportional to those who were willing to participate, that is. Having a fresh influx every year would make it difficult for 'parties' to form. Decisions wouldn't be made with the constant thought that the law makers need to be re-elected at some stage in the future. Every vote on the floor of the parliament would, in effect, be a conscience vote. The speaker would be an outsider, voted in or out by a two thirds majority of the parliament, and have the necessary powers to control the Parliament.

The downside, of course, is that the depth of experience in government would be low, creating the risk of poor decisions. As much as we hate the idea that current politicians always have their eyes on the opinion polls, it does keep them in check. Perhaps the whole thing would turn out to be an unworkable rabble. It is a figment of my warped imagination, after all!

Maybe a better solution is a hybrid government. The professionals in the lower house, and the senate being populated by members selected as described above. A proper house of review ........

Remember the title of the blog!

Any thoughts on the way the political process could be improved to increase the interest and participation of ordinary voter?

2 Comments

SuePB said:

Neville Shute's books are old and not much read these days but I always remember in one he proposed a voting system where a voting value had to be earned - so you accrued extra points with education and experience. Mind you, there would need to adequate access to education at all levels for everyone for this to be half way fair, although a qualified plumber could be allotted the same votes as a BA I should think. But it was designed to water down the moronic vote! Sometimes I think this has merit.

I believe that no one should be allowed to stand for parliament unless they have held a proper job in a business. So by that count lawyers would have to do time in some ther area before nominating. Oink oink.....

mark said:

Three rabid ideas (fully in tune with the name of the domain):

1. The abolishment of preferences - I dont know why, i just dont like it.
2. The abolishment of being able to form Coalitions before elections
3. People could nominate what their taxation was used to fund, i.e if i didn't want my taxes to pay for the military, they wouldn't have to.

Leave a comment

Post a comment

Note! This site runs a spam filter which, among other things, looks out for certain words which it uses to guess whether the post is junk. For this reason, avoid using words related to gambling, ie, poker, roulette, casino etc, or names of certain sexual performance enhancing drugs. Posts that contain these words are automatically junked.

It may also moderate comments that contain more than two URLs, including your web page URL.

If you get a message that your comment has been moderated, and it hasn't materialised within a day or so, please email me so I can retrieve it.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by tony published on May 6, 2005 11:07 PM.

Three For Three was the previous entry in this blog.

IVF Funding Backdown is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Site Counter

Powered by Movable Type 4.31-en

Banner Designed By:

darlinggraphics.com - for all your styling needs

Porcine Aviator: