Democracy: Who should vote for leaders, who should vote on mandates?

We desperately need total constitutional reform with the aim of transforming the UK into a functioning democracy.

Democratically elected legislators should be able to better weigh up the pros and cons of complicated issues.

They should, and we have a right to expect that they do, but too often it seems that decisions are governed by cronyism and self interest.

There must be a better way.

So true Blinko

There must be a better way.

What do we have to do to transform the UK into a true democracy?

I think in the long term only a carefully thought through PR system will deliver the fairest representation of the spread of view of the public.

In the short term, I very much agree with this from the last page,

" but if the party is in office, it is surely better that the MPs of that party make the decision as they will be far better able to assess the candidates."

Nothing is ideal but the unedifying reality of 160.000 citizens choosing the PM in mid term crisis can never be the most "Democratic" option.

Both main Parties should restrict leadership elections to their MPs. Ordinary Party members are insufficiently knowledgeable to make an informed choice - the Truss and Corbyn elections show that. For the time being it doesn't matter how the minor Parties choose their leaders. The mandate to rule is given by the voters to a Party (or indirectly to a coalition). Manifestos may play some part in the voters' choice but frankly most voters have never read them and vote the basis of personalities and what the media say.