Original Posting: New Political System for the Information Age Draft #05
In response to: A discussion like the NPS may have more than one purposes - [lpc1998]
Saturday, 3nd July 2004 22:30 Singapore
A Committee of Lay People
Email: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:56:47 -0700
<snip>
Hi Eric,
Hope I have not snipped to much out, remind me if I have.
[lpc1998]:
“Are you proposing a committee of ‘lay’ people like the jury? ”Yes, don't forget their function is not to decide anything, it is to present the publics comments in a formulated way for the people to decide.
<snip>
[lpc1998]:
“Isn’t this precisely the problem? To remain in office or to be re-elected, the Prime Minister must serve his constituents ‘well’ with special benefits and privileges at the expense of the rest of the citizens. This is one crucial reason why Prime Ministers are often elected with large electoral majority.A Prime Minister’s constituent is in the position to tell the civil servant handling his case that he wants satisfaction from the civil servant failing which he would see the Prime Minister on Monday (or whatever day it is) morning/evening at the meet-the–people-session. This would be scandalous in the NPS.”
[Bernard Clayson]:
“You are overlooking the hierarchy the PM has to climb through to get to that position, he/she has to be elected by his/her peers of that level in order to achieve the next level, and as it would be impossible to serve on all levels (from community, parish, district, county, region, government AND be PM), the obligation to serve on more than three is automatically removed ........... but the qualifying status remains. Hence any attempt to favour ANY sector would automatically find disfavour with the other sectors, and the PM (and MP's) can only act on their constituents vote.”
[lpc1998]:
“Are “his/her peers” fellow MPs or party members whose endorsement for election or political career depends on or benefits from the political party controlled by the PM and his political success? ”The 'peers' are the people at the same level, only they know the individuals well enough to decide who is capable of representing them at the higher level, and please note, there are no 'parties' as such in the system. Each individual is a community chosen person, not a party chosen person, each one has to answer to, and is held reponsible to, the community that chose them. This is one of the reasons I promote public-run systems, official-run systems all favour party promotion because party-people can-be/are manipulated, individuals are bucking a stacked-deck when it comes to competing for office at any level
Regards
Bernard Clayson
PLANET-THANET
Replies from: