3 ms·
This is just deciding the order of business - not voting in the sense a civilian understands it. The other way this can be done in parliamentary systems is to
by C1sc0cat 8y ago
This is just deciding the order of business - not voting in the sense a civilian understands it.
The other way this can be done in parliamentary systems is to have a lay member body sort through and produce a draft order of business.
This body also decides which motions are in order which are duplicates and which need to be composited (ie a merge in tech speak) and also works out any conseqensionals (eg if Motion A passes then Motions G X and Y fall)
- tialaramex 8y agoYes the usual situation we're familiar with is picking a candidate in an election (which is what millions of Brits were doing yesterday) but it's the same for all these decisions. The key ingredients are more than two options (if there are only exactly two options we can solve this nicely and if there's only one option it's trivial) and wanting to incorporate preferences from many different people (ie let's not have a dictator or use sortition) Neutral arbiters (your "lay member body") are very expensive because they can be captured so you need to defend against that, and even when they aren't captured you'll have to put up with accusations that they /were/ by sore losers who didn't get what they wanted from the neutral arbiter. For a sovereign government you can't impose the neutral arbiter on them, so they'll have to agree to suffer it, and such agreement is necessarily conditional. You can do it (that's how the Speaker of the House of Commons in the UK works) but it's fragile and I wouldn't advise it.
- C1sc0cat 8y agoThey are normally elected and yes it is like the Speaker of the HOC though normally a bit more crunchy that the old softy that's currently in the position.