From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Tue Aug 06 2002 - 11:11:40 MDT
In a message dated 8/6/02 2:56:30, charlie@antipope.org writes:
>While not applicable to the US model, I rather like the idea of replacing
>the UK's House of Lords (which is in transition from being an unelected
>body of hereditary nobility to being an elected upper house) with a jury.
>
>The idea is simple: the House of Lords has traditionally had a remit to
>veto or revise legislation, not to initiate it. So: allocate 600 seats,
>and a 5-year incumbency per seat.
Sounds like an improvement to me. Polyarchic systems are more stable
and abuse-resistant. As long as everybody's elected the same way, a
bicameral legislature provides little protection. But jury + legislature
is a big difference and sounds nice. Anybody pursuing this?
Grand jury systems in the US provide a nice addition (the Orange County
grand jury grinds out a nice analysis every other year or so) They're
weakened because the pay is such a joke nobody can serve, and they
lack any real power. This is kind of a national grand jury, with a little
oomph (and, I presume, pay exceeding minimum wage?)
>Each year, retire 150 members and select
>another 150 by lottery from the electoral register.
That should be 120.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:55 MST