But a second house, providing reflective scrutiny, would still improve legislation. Even if a lot of people vote for them, idiots writing laws would still be idiots!
Why does it need to be a separately elected group of representatives to do this, and assuming PR, what would lead them to come to different conclusions?
I'm not certain that it does need to be a separate chamber. I accept the point (I think you made it!) earlier that a committee system, properly constituted, should be able to apply sufficient scrutiny.
But - and this is just a feeling! - having a second house on a different political cycle may remove poitical pressure from the legislative scrutiny. I'm not sure that a committee system would be seen as sufficiently independent.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2022-11-20 12:00 pm
no subject
But a second house, providing reflective scrutiny, would still improve legislation. Even if a lot of people vote for them, idiots writing laws would still be idiots!
no subject
no subject
But - and this is just a feeling! - having a second house on a different political cycle may remove poitical pressure from the legislative scrutiny. I'm not sure that a committee system would be seen as sufficiently independent.