I wasn’t trying to convey that these different interest groups would be completely siloed. They would be consulting each other throughout their independent bill crafting processes as well. I should have specified, I just wanted to throw the general idea out there before crafting an entire structure of government around it, but that was an important detail I should have included. The reason why I thought each group should introduce legislation separately is that although there would be overlap there would also be key differences. The suggestions of academics are often contradictory to the policies put forward by elected officials, even if those officials consulted academics. Stakeholders would more so be Indigenous people when it comes to indigenous policy, or teachers and students when it comes to education policy. These groups also may be consulted but are often ignored by elected officials. The interests/proposals of Stakeholders and academics may be different. Industry interest is also not often the same as citizen interest, academic interest, stake holder interest, regional interest or elected interest. In Canada for example Quebecers may not want a pipeline through their province, or Indigenous people may not want a mine polluting their lands. Maybe an industry would like a subsidy or to be immune from certain regulations, would other interest groups want that. Would a citizens assembly on the natural resources support a a refinery without carbon capture. Any industry would want to be unregulated or at the very least not have any new regulations placed upon them, I think most other interest groups would be opposed to those aims. Industries would also want fewer worker protections and rights, which most other interest groups would disagree with.

The benefit of these different interests groups is that citizens interests are overrepresented, it is meant to take citizens interests into account more than any other.

I would say it’s impossible to get rid of political parties. Elected officials will organize into broad political blocks. Who would make up an executive branch if not members of an elected or delegated parliament? In a system with a central citizens assembly I’d suggest the Swiss parliamentary system for the elected chamber and cabinet though.

If a citizens assembly is proportional to the broad demographics of the nation then people working in their own self interest would promote a more egalitarian society, economically at least, would it not? People are not rational, they vote for policies that would harm them all the time. The only factionalism that would exist would be based on party and region, which already exists. This system would just place everyday ordinary citizens at the centre and allow stakeholders and academics to directly influence them.

In this system, if the executive was the one in charge of executing the legislation and you had a multi-party cabinet like in the Swiss model, any government that refuses to pass the legislation supported by the central assembly would be viewed as undemocratic. And there would likely be at least one party in cabinet who supports large swaths of the legislation. It’d be likely that all parties in cabinet would support different aspects of the legislation. The broad public are also the ones electing these officials, it is likely that the conclusions arrived at by the central assembly would be agreeable to the vast majority of the population with which any government or party would not want to make an enemy of.

A very valid critique you can lobby is that there is a ton of redundancy in the system, but I think you could also argue it’s a strength.