So, just in case the unrepresentative swill (as Keating called them) in the Senate are not currently obstructive enough, Gruen now proposes another layer of government, ideally consisting entirely of amateur politicians aged 18 and up.

What could possibly go wrong?

On what basis could Gruen believe that such a chamber would not fragment into mutually hostile factions? On what basis could he believe that his "people's chamber" would not be captured by one or more of such factions?

And on what basis could Gruen possible believe that the Senate "has improved our democracy as a house of review" when it is now not a house of review nor a States' house, but a chamber which votes on political party lines, give or take a few independents?

One might also wonder at the cost of running an extra chamber, but millions of dollars would be the ball park.

The problem with aiming to emulate Solon requires a rather thick pair of rose coloured glasses in order to forget that Solon's reforms were a monumnetal failure leading only to chaos and the Peisistratid tyranny. Perhaps aiming to emulate Cleisthenes, Thermistocles or Aristides might be a better choice.

I'm an enormous fan of the Athens golden age but we should remember that ultimately it was, as a political experiment, a spectacular failure, loosing both wars against its Hellene rivals and proving incapable and unwilling to whole-heartedly resist the threat from Macedon which bought the golden age to an end.

A large part of the reason for the failures of the Athenian polity was exactly the system the author wants to emulate. The democracy worked pretty well when it was guided by sober and brilliant leaders like Thermistocles, Pericles, Cleon and Thrasybulus. But giving legislative powers to the masses selected by lot also meant the rise of less able and less scrupulous leaders.

While choosing by lot seems democratic, in practice what happened is that the idle and avarous were more likely to take up their alotted power and to be swayed by those who played to the masses.

In the author's suggested system, how many of those with productive lives would be in a position to devote the time and research effort to being sober judges of the issues bought forth before this citizens council?

Democracy works best when its limited. The notion that a random sample of the electorate, however large it may be, contains collegiate wisdom is, it seems to me, to be the victory of hope over experience. One of the main aims of democracy is to protect the rights of the polity against the powerful and the power hungry. But this proposal would ultimately provide an avenue for the powerful and power hungry to circumvent the rights of the polity behind a facade of majority rule.

We need a republic the other brand is dead in the water decades ago.
A republic would be like starting with a clean slate.

Notice how this article on proposed changes to the constitution:
1. doesn't say what government actually is?
2. makes no attempt to square that claim with reality, and
3. does not say what the limits to legitimate government power are.?

Once you start noticing this, you see it everywhere in political discussion.

Doog, Why do you think that is so?

Gruen. You would be given more credence if you had just suggested getting rid of the obstructive Senate instead of adding another expensive bunch of antagonists.

David

I the legislation at hand was any good it would not have any problem with the senate.
Saying get rid of an obstructive senate, you are dismissing democracy .
The senate was elected by the people. Turnbull was elected by party room vote.