mike777, on 2011-December-22, 20:52, said:
Technocracy is a hypothetical form of government in which science would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers and technologists who have knowledge, expertise or skills would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen and economists.[1] In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field.
a system where the "most qualified" and those who decide the validity of qualifications are the same people.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Technocracy
This is the world posters want?
I want the best of both worlds, and with reference to the UK's system, this is how I'd achieve it:
The state of things at the moment:
Our first chamber has 650 members closely affiliated to small areas of the country, elected first past the post. People like the geographical link but first past the post means that 45% of the votes can mean 70% of the seats. Also moving boundaries of seats can have an undue effect on this, if the Conservative/Labour shares of the vote had been reversed at the last election, instead of the Conservatives being a few seats short of an overall majority, Labour would have ahd a 50-100 seat majority.
We have an appointed second chamber, this has the disadvantage that bishops and hereditary peers get in, but has the advantage that you can appoint people with expertise in particular areas without them having to go through the bruising election process which many of them wouldn't do.
So - what do we do about it.
My suggestion is as follows:
We enlarge the constituencies so there are only say 450-500 geographically based MPs. The constituency MPs spend most of their time in the constituencies but can e-vote on motions in the house (or e-pair*). They can come to Westminster to speak if they wish. Then we add 300 experts appointed by the parties, with a proportion devised to bring the number of MPs per party closer to the overall share of the vote.
Second chamber smaller and elected by proportional representation. Whether regional or national PR to be decided.
*Pairing is a quaint tradition where MPs from Labour and the Conservatives agree that where one can't get to the house and they would be voting on opposite sides of the motion, then the other doesn't vote either.