Ratifying Conventions

Here's another method for amending the new Constitution. For the most part it isn't much different than what others have suggested but there is a key difference at the end.

There are two ways for an amendment to come before the people.

1. if ⅔ of Parliament passes an amendment

2. if ½ of the UK signs a petition supporting such an amendment. The government will have to provide an online place for petitions to be formed. Any petition will require that the amendment proposed is written out. People can either send in their support by mail or sign online. The creators of two petitions can join their petitions and supporters of both will be automatically asked if they support the combined petition. Only one amendment per petition is allowed but the scope of any amendment is not limited.

Once an amendment has passed either requirements the people will ratify it through conventions. Each convention will represent 30,000 people. A non-political committee(s) will determine the boundaries of who is represented by each convention every 5/10 years and must be as contiguous and compact as possible subject to overruling by the courts. Inside the boundaries of each convention, the people will further be divided into 30 tribes (for lack of a better word) by a local committee which again have to be contiguous and compact and subject to overruling by the courts. When an amendment is proposed by one of the two methods above then people inside their tribe will elect one person to represent them in their local convention. When electing the person, in addition to choosing who should represent the local tribe, voters also decide whether he should vote yes, no, or decide for himself/herself. If a majority vote yes or no the that representative is bound to vote as his voters indicated. If a majority votes that the representative should decide for himself/herself. In the convention representatives will debate the new amendment, the pros and cons, as they wish. At the end of the debates, representatives will send to their voters their preferred vote and why. Then a week will pass whereby voters may read/listen to their representative's decision and the debates at the convention and change their vote if they wish. At the end of the week the convention will reconvene and cast their votes. The convention will send the representative's votes back to the agency that takes care of the petitions. If ⅔ of the representatives support the amendment, it becomes ratified and part of the constitution.

Sorry if that is a little confusing. I mainly support this idea for several reasons. First it allows Parliament, the people who are most likely to know how a proposed amendment might affect government, a say in the matter but allows the people to bypass Parliament if Parliament becomes unresponsive. Second it gives the people the power to ultimately decide where they want their constitution to go. Third it helps everyone have a say even if they don't have the time or feel they have the knowledge required to seriously debate an amendment. Fourth by making the representatives represent only a 1000 people and placing some limits on gerrymandering, hopefully people will be able to choose someone who they either know or know of and are quite comfortable with them representing them. 

No comments yet, be the first to post one!