The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)  (Read 865 times)

Offline Jolly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
I've called it Representative democratic Parity, and combined Local/national parlimentary system

Feminists actually inspired me to consider the issue of Parity in political representation- and this is my answer:

Basic concept below for a new type of democratic system that actually allows almost all groups that make up a society to be represented:-

SOOO


Basically the idea is to make local parliaments, which would take over the responsibilities of local councils.


In England there are 533 Parlimentry constituencies, and for councils there are 269 'lower tier' authorities and 353 principal authorities, So 533 constituencies to 622 councils.


So as a basic example all of the councils and there responsibilities would be absorbed by the Parlimentary constituencies, and then each constituencies would have itīs own parliament.


The seats on these new constituency parliments would be pre-allocated- to say as a simple example, If 50% of the constituency were female then 50% of the seats in the constituency parliment would be pre-allocated for a women to hold.


So how does that work. Well simplistically put, women for example, are, as a group are diverse, some are of an older gereration, some of a younger, some stay at home, others work. So you look at all the sub groups which make up the main group "women", and then allocate a seats to represent those sub groups- the members of that sub group then vote for who they want to hold that seat.

So as an example middle aged working women would vote for a person to represent them and their group in which ever constituency they live.

Meaning that after you analize all the diverse groups with-in a constituency you see how many seats you need, and which different group/s each seat should represent. Then each group represented votes for their representative.


Ofcourse we are all either male or female, members of different ethic groups, with different faiths or no faith at all, we all have different classes, different status. And we can be members of different groups all at the same time; that reality adds some complexity but still as complex as that is, it is certainly not too difficult to organise a system that will to a large degree represent fairly, all the different groups that live in a constituency.

There are ofcourse voice less people in any area, to say people that cannot vote, Children, the mentally or psyically dis-advantaged, and members of a sub group too small to be allocated a seat, in the local parliment- In this instence a seat or seats can be alloted and all voters would be able to vote for who they want to hold the seat or seats.


Party politics would still be present as each political party could put a candidate forward in each election for each seat, of each group.

So what you would hopefully end up with is a democratically elected local Parliment, which as best as possible, fully represented all the diversity within that parlimentary constituency, and then continued over the whole country, it would give you a situation where all peoples would be represented.


That would be a foundation, moving from that;

Each parlimentary constituency would then elect one of itīs members to represent them in the house of commons - the main Parliment in London.


The main benefit I see in the idea of local parliments sending one of their members to represent them in the commons-

1. Currently we elect one person who then votes and decides by themselves- what to vote for, which policies to introduce and which questions to ask- with this new idea, all members of the commons would have the support, critic and assistence of the other members of their local parliment-

2. The member of commons would vote as their parlaimentary constitiuency wants them to, leading to a better form of representation in the voting process.

3. Debates would have to take place, currently when there is a vote in the commons, the Mps do not even have to turn up and vote, they do not need to read the white papers, they can vote without having any understanding of what is actually being voted on.

With this new idea, the members of the local parliment will have to discuss issues comming up for a vote in the commons. True not all members might be interested in certain topics yet, for the local parliment to have a position on a vote, a discussion and debate would be needed, currently that all happens in the mind of a single person, your MP.


So this is my answer to the questions of representational-parity in the democratic processes.


If you have an questions or suggestion or comments feel free to pose them.
« Last Edit: 17/12/2015 11:38:56 by Jolly »


 

Offline Jolly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
So a local parliment with 100 seats (I say 100 just as an example as it easier)

Should have a percentage of seats reflecting an equal percentage of the different members groups.

Basic example

51% of constituency are female, 51 seats should be allocated to women, leaving the other 49 for men.


25% of the constituency are buddhist 25 seats should be held by buddhists representatives, leaving the other 75% for athiests, christians.

50% of the constituency are working class(you'll love this one) 50- seats should be held by representatives for the working class

25% of the constituency are middle class 25 seat are to be held by representative of the middle class

There you get the cross overs


So as an example you would end up with something like, working class buddhist women holding arround 13 seats or 13% of the seats.

Ofcourse who the Group "working class buddhist women" vote for, is another issue, hopefully they vote for the people they feel will represent them best.

This is a very basic example, that I hope gives you all an idea of how it would work in practice.

Bascially you access the entire population in a constituency, and allocate seats to represent them all, as fairly as possible.

Then each group votes for the people/persons that they want to represent them.

Then the elected officals of the local parliment, vote amoungst themsleves for who they will send to represent them and the constituency in the national parliment. 

The local parliment also takes over the current work of local councils, but with more democratic control and representation, I would argue.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Usual confusion due to the word "represent" having two meanings.

To some extent, any man or woman can be said to represent all men or all women: represent meaning "having the same essential characteristics". But that isn't the function of parliament.

The function of a democratic representative is to speak on behalf of and promote the interests of all the inhabitants of a geographical constituency - the other meaning of "represent". 

Whether a person has a penis or a vagina has no obvious bearing on that person's ability to persuade the government to invest in new sewers for Birmingham Central rather than a new runway for East Acton. What matters is his/her ability to summarise and present a case, or scrutinise the arguments in favour of another course of action, and to make deals and decisions with other representatives for the mutual benefit of all.

If accused of murder, would you want to be represented in court by a convicted murderer, or by a professional lawyer?

I have interests in common with scientists, musicians, aviators and heterosexuals, but the decision to spend my taxes on warfare or welfare must be made by someone with an intelligent appreciation of politics and economics and the needs of all my neighbours: the fact that she is a left-handed lesbian is of no consequence.
 

Offline Jolly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
I see the general gist of you point.

But notice please that one person cannot really represent all the different groups that exists within a geographical space of a consituency.

This idea calls for all the different groups to choose a person to represent their group, not one person to represent all of them.

It also calls for each local parliment to debate and discuss new laws, before there is a discussion and or vote in the main national parliment.

Currently one person votes as they see fit, under this idea an entire group of locally elected MPs would discuss new laws and make a collective decision together, that surely is a better form of debate and democracy, compared with what we have now- one person thinking about it and then voting.

Quote
If accused of murder, would you want to be represented in court by a convicted murderer, or by a professional lawyer?

I really have trouble seeing the point you are trying to make with this question. Just because someone is convicted of a murder, doesnt actaully mean they actaully did it(there are plenty of examples of innocent death row inmates). Niether does someone having been convicted of murder, mean they are not intelectually capable of representing a person in a court of law: but I suppose if he couldnt get himself off. It suggests he probably would'nt do so well, defending someone else.

So to answer your question, Err not really.

Still, I dont think people will just go voting for murderers- Sorry scrape that they do now.

 
« Last Edit: 19/12/2015 01:05:33 by Jolly »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
I see the general gist of you point.

But notice please that one person cannot really represent all the different groups that exists within a geographical space of a consituency.

This idea calls for all the different groups to choose a person to represent their group, not one person to represent all of them.
But there are as many groups as there are people. As a  lefthanded lesbian dentist with blue eyes, do I get four votes or one? If one, can I choose which group to assign it to? Are Christians a group? If so, will the Catholics accept a Protestant representative?

Quote
It also calls for each local parliment to debate and discuss new laws, before there is a discussion and or vote in the main national parliment.
That can (and in my opinion should) be achieved by  a pyramidal system based entirely on geography.


Quote
Quote
If accused of murder, would you want to be represented in court by a convicted murderer, or by a professional lawyer?

I really have trouble seeing the point you are trying to make with this question. Just because someone is convicted of a murder, doesnt actaully mean they actaully did it(there are plenty of examples of innocent death row inmates). Niether does someone having been convicted of murder, mean they are not intelectually capable of representing a person in a court of law: but I suppose if he couldnt get himself off. It suggests he probably would'nt do so well, defending someone else.
It is simply to point out the two different meanings of "represent". Imagine you are uneducated, unemployed, and accused of murder.  A convicted murderer, whether guilty or innocent, has at some time stood in your shoes, faced with evidence of a crime that he has apparently committed, and if he has no legfal qualifications, is therefore far more representative of you than a trained barrister who has never broken a speed limit. Who would you want to conduct your defence?   

Quote
Still, I dont think people will just go voting for murderers-
Oh but they do. And not just convicted single murderers, but populist dictators who have personally killed several and ordered the death of thousands.
« Last Edit: 19/12/2015 14:35:29 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Jolly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
I see the general gist of you point.

But notice please that one person cannot really represent all the different groups that exists within a geographical space of a consituency.

This idea calls for all the different groups to choose a person to represent their group, not one person to represent all of them.
But there are as many groups as there are people.

No there are not as many groups as there are people, you need a few people atleast to make a group.

As a  lefthanded lesbian dentist with blue eyes, do I get four votes or one?

You'd get one to vote for someone to represent you and all other lesibian dentists- if that was considered valid as a group that needed representation. There would always be certain, very small nieches of people that would not be big enought, to deserve holding a seat, yet they could all as a small group colective vote for a person to represent them.


If one, can I choose which group to assign it to?

These are questions to consider.

Are Christians a group?

They are, yet you'll find all Christians are also male or female, working, middle or upper class. There are groups that interconnect and as such you would get a situation that, gives a seat to each of these sub groups.

It'll never completely match all the different groups in an area, but it doesnt have to, this is more about giving as many as possible a representative. And currently we all vote for one person, this idea means voting a local parliment, it's a far more democractic ideal, then what we currently have.

If so, will the Catholics accept a Protestant representative?

Some would some wouldn't, not an issue, both would be allowed seats to represent them.

Quote
It also calls for each local parliment to debate and discuss new laws, before there is a discussion and or vote in the main national parliment.
That can (and in my opinion should) be achieved by  a pyramidal system based entirely on geography.

Your point I am not sure I folow you'll have to explain better. All democracies work on geography.

Quote
Quote
If accused of murder, would you want to be represented in court by a convicted murderer, or by a professional lawyer?

I really have trouble seeing the point you are trying to make with this question. Just because someone is convicted of a murder, doesnt actaully mean they actaully did it(there are plenty of examples of innocent death row inmates). Niether does someone having been convicted of murder, mean they are not intelectually capable of representing a person in a court of law: but I suppose if he couldnt get himself off. It suggests he probably would'nt do so well, defending someone else.
It is simply to point out the two different meanings of "represent". Imagine you are uneducated, unemployed, and accused of murder.  A convicted murderer, whether guilty or innocent, has at some time stood in your shoes, faced with evidence of a crime that he has apparently committed, and if he has no legfal qualifications, is therefore far more representative of you than a trained barrister who has never broken a speed limit. Who would you want to conduct your defence? 

Interesting yet it is a very different subject, the court of law compared to a parliment. As such it bares little regard to what we are discussing here, people voting for who they want to represent them in a parliment, to dicuss new laws and solutions to current problems, a court room is a totally different circumstance. So your question is really unrelated.



Quote
Still, I dont think people will just go voting for murderers-
Oh but they do.


Yeah they Voted Obama and bush in again, but they would'nt consider themselves murderers, regardless of what some people think about War or drone attaks.

And not just convicted single murderers, but populist dictators who have personally killed several and ordered the death of thousands.


In the current system certainly. There is a lot of centralised power in the current system. Local parliments fragments that.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length