If you happen to know any MPs, see if you can get them to propose this as an early day motion...

Observation #1: Professional wrestling is fake.
Pro wrestling has been rigged for a very long time. Even before Vince McMahon publicly admitted that matches in the former WWF were more pantomime than combat, it was tacitly acknowledged - although vehemently denied in public - that the winners of wrestling matches were determined in advance.

The degree to which the fine detail of matches is planned probably changes on a match-by-match basis - any really big and widely-televised match is probably planned out to the nth degree, whereas a smaller match in a local promotion is more likely to be improvised by the wrestlers on the spot. However it's done, this doesn't change the fact that the storylines are planned out weeks in advance, and even if a wrestler doesn't like the fact that they will have to lose a match for the story to progress, they have very little choice in the matter.

Observation #2: The results of most Commons votes are known beforehand.
Within the House of Commons, hung parliaments are very rare. The last time all parties failed to achieve a clear majority was 1974, and even that was cleared up within the year. Most governments in the UK, then, have the ability to pass whatever legislation they like. Even if the Lords don't like it, parliamentary ping-pong can only last so long before the government gets bored and invokes the Parliament Act to push it through. A sitting government losing a vote, in fact, is so rare that when it does happen the opposition can usually make a very strong case for the government's resignation.

Effectively, therefore, unless a vote is extremely controversial (detention of terror suspects, for example), the ruling party will definitely win it. The voting process may be entertaining and even gripping, but it's known beforehand.

Conclusion #1: Pro wrestling and British parliamentary democracy, in terms of victory conditions on a day-to-day basis, are functionally identical.

Observation #3: Turnout in elections is currently very low by historical standards.
Why this should be isn't completely clear, but it's almost certainly partly due to a lack of interest in politics. Why should the public care about a few hundred men and women jeering at each other like schoolkids every Wednesday?

Conclusion #2: In order to increase public interest, as well as mixing things up a little, all Commons votes should be replaced with a wrestling match between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or between any subordinates that they nominate.

Immediately, politics would be so much more fun. Instead of calling "Division! Clear the lobbies!" before a vote, the Speaker would pull on a black and white striped shirt and shout "Are you rrrrrready to ruuuuummmmbleeeeee?!" The dispatch box in the centre of the chamber would sink into the floor, to be replaced by a ring (for really serious votes, it would undoubtedly have to be a Hell in a Cell match). Gordon Brown would nip down the road to Downing Street to get his costume - I'd suggest going with a gimmick like "The Highlander" - while David Miliband got the crowd warmed up by climbing the turnbuckle and sticking two fingers up at the Tory backbenchers.

The party whips wouldn't normally have any trouble keeping backbench MPs in line, but if MPs felt really strongly about an issue, then they could influence the result. All you'd need would be a stack of folding steel chairs near the ring. If any Labour MP wished to rebel against the government, he'd have to grab a chair, wait until Gordon was busy applying the Mandible Claw to David Cameron, then whack him across the back of the head. Meanwhile, other rebel MPs would be distracting the Speaker over in the far corner so that he didn't stop it. Just one rebel wouldn't do a lot - just like in the Commons at the moment - but enough of them could do some serious damage.

It's possible that holding one's opponent to the mat for a count of three wouldn't have quite the same air of dignity about it that "The motion is carried" has. However, if the same attitude shown in matches were to spread into the rest of parliamentary business, the day's record in Hansard would be far more entertaining.

Mr. David Cameron (Witney) (Con): It is clear what needs to be done: intercept in court so that we catch, convict and imprison more terrorists. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must not put off endlessly what needs to be done?

The Prime Minister: The Honourable Gentleman opposite seems to know what needs to be done, and he is eager to see it done. But the Opposition seem unable to grasp the simple fact that the real terror here will be seen this Monday night, when the Honourable Gentleman will feel that terror for himself. For it is then that he will see hell...hell...in a cell! [cheering]

All we need now is Michael Portillo and Jeremy Paxman doing the commentary, and we've got a ratings winner on our hands.