Randomly-selected second chamber

[Floppy]

Based on the citizen panels idea from Rebooting Democracy.

[philipjohn]

I had exactly the same idea whilst reading Rebooting Democracy :) so I'm a 👍

One question though: the 5 year term would be full time? I was thinking that either very short, or legislation-specific terms would be better. Given the deliberation involved, it wouldn't be good to have the House of Citizens ;) deliberate on a piece of legislation only for their term to be up before it could finish. Unless of course, we're synchronising with the Commons...?

[philipjohn]

Oh and the 5 year impact on someone's life could be huge...especially if we're making this compulsory, because it could ruin their career prospects. So for that reason alone in fact I'd be more inclined to say legislation-specific citizen panels, rather than a consistent house with a 5 year term.

[Floppy]

The core arguments for a random selection (from Rebooting Democracy) are:

1. Elected representatives are mostly just as uninformed as the general population and have advisors to help them reach their decision, so it doesn't tend to matter that random selectees don't "know what they're being asked about".

2. Experience shows that getting together a random group to deliberate on something with evidence presented to them leads to generally rational decisions. Such groups are designed to bring out "System 2" deliberative thinking, which everyone can do, but doesn't always get the chance to.

3. Removes the "political elite" factor, and produces a decision-making group that reflects the actual population correctly.

4. This house wouldn't be initiating legislation, that would still be the directly-elected representatives, just deliberating on it and reviewing it.

[Floppy]

I've removed the term length now.

[Floppy]

@PaulJRobinson http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=5788 may be of interest to you on this. I'm trying to find a better reference to include along with the actual text as well.

[PaulJRobinson]

There are some interesting arguments put across here, but they still feel
like a collective sigh at the failure of democracy in HoL, when it hasn't
even been tried yet. We often talk about how hard fought democracy has been
over the centuries, and how lucky we are compared to some developing
countries, so why are we so keen to try something else when it isn't
completely perfect? I maintain that democratic rule is one of the greatest
concepts created by humankind, and I think it is absolutely fundamental to
a properly functioning civil society.

But let me take each of the 4 arguments detailed above:

1. Yes elected representatives require advisors, as would random selectees.
   That doesn't mean random selectees are any better. They still haven't been
   selected for any positive reason. They still cannot be held to account at a
   subsequent election. Accountability remains a key component of a democratic
   system (and is one reason why limited terms for elected politicians are
   flawed).
2. Same as above. If a random group can deliberate on ideas which leads to
   rational decisions, how is that better than a selected group getting
   together which leads to equally rational decisions?
3. This is good. But I maintain there are other ways of preventing a
   political elite from taking hold: open primaries; making legislators
   voluntary/part-time so they have to maintain a primary income as a
   doctor/shopkeeper/teacher etc and don't work their way up the political
   career ladder as SPADS; alternatively paying legislators an incredibly good
   salary so it isn't just the wealthy who can afford a career in politics.
4. Again as with 1) and 2) an elected HoL would also 'just' be deliberating
   and reviewing legislation. I don't see how random groups are better than
   accountable and meritoriously chosen legislators at doing this.

In sum, I can see how a random group can be equally good at making sound
and rational decisions. But "equally good" isn't "better". Especially when
you can't hold them to account every 4 years. Let's hold onto democracy for
a little while longer before we throw it out with the bathwater.

I'm afraid this is a strong 👎 from me.

ps: Practical Issues 1) Can you say "I don't want to spend next 5 years in
HoL thanks" and opt-out? Or is it like Jury Service and you have to do
it? Which would be rather illiberal to force a 5 year sentence on someone
taking them away from a job and a family (eg in Scotland) that they love.
2) If you can opt-out then you're left with a group of people who are
'keen' to do it and it is slightly less random mix (because of the argument
that anyone who wants power should never be in a position to get any -
which is partly how this idea was initially proposed I think).

On 17 June 2014 07:16, James Smith notifications@github.com wrote:

@PaulJRobinson https://github.com/PaulJRobinson
http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=5788 may be of interest to you on this.
I'm trying to find a better reference to include along with the actual text
as well.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#188 (comment)
.

[tmtmtmtm]

My suggestion: replace (or augment) the HoL with a 'jury' system on a per-Bill basis. This would be selected randomly (like criminal juries) — with the benefits as per above — but without asking them to give a major chunk of their life for an extended term (beyond that which happens with court trials). The vast majority would be disposed of in a day or two. The mechanisms here already exist, and are well known, and could largely be reused.

Other parts of it need fleshed out a little more (e.g. how to best prevent a government bringing back the same law again and again until it gets a sympathetic jury), but what do people think of the idea in the large?

[Floppy]

The jury-per-bill system does seem interesting. Do you think you'd need a permanent second house if you did this, or would it be replaced by these bill-specific citizen panels? Do you know of anywhere that's doing this on a regular basis?

[philipjohn]

@Floppy Trying to remember some of the examples in Rebooting Democracy. They were based on referendums I think, so transferring that principle to bills might be new. That'd require us to commit to trials rather than a full implementation.

[Floppy]

Yeah, I don't remember examples of it being used during creation of legislation. Perhaps, yes, we should propose some options in this PR. I'll have a think.

[PaulJRobinson]

I've come around to this one having now read Reboot Democracy. 👍

[Floppy]

@philipjohn I assume you're still a 👍 on this one? If so, we should be able to merge it.

[frabcus]

"I've come around to this one having now read Reboot Democracy. 👍" -- ha, that's an example of deliberation changing people's minds!

I'm not completely sure about implementing this one straight away, without first doing "Research deliberate democracy" #216

How do "long game" future ideas like that fit in? i.e. things we think are good ideas, but there isn't enough evidence yet to risk implementing.

A similar example is Citizens Income in Green policy - they don't have a plan to implement it straight away, as you have to know quite a lot to make sure it balances financially. But they'd work towards it, research it more and so on. (I think, I'm paraphrasing here!)

[Floppy]

The whole thing is a long game really. We have plenty of stuff that's vision of where we want to get to - there are many steps along the way. We could add a note after merging both PRs to clarify if needed though.

[philipjohn]

Yep, I'm still a 👍 and on #216

[Floppy]

This proposal is open for discussion and voting. If you are a contributor to this repository (and not the proposer), you may vote on whether or not it is accepted.

How to vote

Vote by entering one of the following symbols in a comment on this pull request. Only your last vote will be counted, and you may change your vote at any time until the change is accepted or closed.

vote	symbol	type this	points
Agree	👍	:thumbsup:	1
Abstain	✋	:hand:	-1
Block	👎	:thumbsdown:	-1000

Proposals will be accepted and merged once they have a total of 2 points when all votes are counted. Votes will be open for a minimum of 7 days, but will be closed if the proposal is not accepted after 90.

Votes are counted automatically here, and results are set in the merge status checks below.

Changes

If the proposer makes a change to the proposal, no votes cast before that change will be counted.