Now, one of the big arguments that would be levelled against this system is 'well, surely you'll end up with loads of people who just want to hang about the Commons bar having orgies'. But, no, for Big Brother 4 has shown us that people vote out the mad ones first leaving the dull ones until last. Thus, although 'Big Parliament' will start out with three-on-three sex romps on the dispatch box, by the time the 4 years are up, we'll be left with a teetotal fish trader talking for 5 hours about the pressing need for reform on halibut futures. Participation will drop and everyone will moan about how we need more alcohol (not a problem we have with the current House of Commons, I suspect). That's before we get to the issue of who chooses the people to go into Parliament and if we use a computer who writes the algorithm and who implements it... Blah... After all, with multiple competing parties, one thing you're not short of is scrutiny over the election process, but who would be the stakeholders here?
I can see John Howard speaking about the pressing need for reform on halibut futures. He would tell us that someone told him that al-Qa'ida is trying to corner the halibut futures market and that these evildoers are a direct threat to Australia on such a fantastic scale that we must send in the troops to fillet them immediately. Simon Crean would accuse the prime minister of turning the halibut into red herrings. The prime minister would say that Crean is soft on halibut. The opposition leader would flounder some more.
When later we discovered that there was no terrorist threat to the halibut Howard would gently explain that he was never told whatever he told us someone told him. Crean would say that sounds fishy. The electorate would swallow it hook, line and sinker.