If only 75% vote in an election, why are not 25% of our representatives chosen by lot? After all, we're happy to rely upon juries selected at random.
I'd have much more faith in 650 MPs who are ordinary wo/men whose names had been drawn from a hat than I would in any 650 career politicians.Ha! If nothing else it would put the wind up the current over-thinking PPE graduates and 'never-had-a-job-but-happy-to-dictate' ideologues we mostly have to suffer.
But, as I remember from a long-distant link tank, there have been studies on this in the past. And it don't look good for the performance of our currently-elected broomsticks.
Why Randomly-Selected Politicians Would Improve Democracy
In practice, there are numerous examples of democratic systems that are rife with corruption or paralysed by disagreement. Even in benign parliaments, it is often an open question as to whether the work they do really benefits the majority of people.
Today, Alessandro Pluchino and amici at the Universitá di Catania in Italy say there is a better way. They have modelled the behaviour of a two-party parliament and examined how it changes as randomly selected independent legislators are introduced into the system.
Their counterintuitive conclusion is that randomly selected legislators always improves the performance of parliament and that it is possible to determine the optimal number of independents at which a parliament works best.I'm sure that politicians would provide us all a whole host of reasons why everyday people should be kept well away from their cosy bubble, of course. The unspoken one being that they've worked their socks off for years to ignore the public entirely!