An Elected Upper House

[Undesired Walrus]

I'd like to discuss the benfits of an elected Upper House. As most members here are from the United States, a country with such an institutional, I thought they may be some worthy insights on whether the UK should do the same.

One of the frequent arguments against an elected House of Lords is as follows:

Quote:

In these new circumstances we should reconsider the need for an elected chamber. For the great strength of the Lords is that it contains not just a bunch of experienced retired MPs but a whole raft of individuals with specialist knowledge and experience from the worlds of commerce, medicine, the services, the civil service, academia, the unions - the list is endless - none of whom would be likely to be available to stand for election. In addition, appointments to the Lords have been judiciously used to correct imbalances of gender and race in the Commons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf.../comment.lords

Surely this argument shows a complete distrust in the public to make these decisions? There is no reason there cannot be a 'Draft Richard Dawkins' campaign by a section of the public, only for Lord Dawkins to be sworn in for Oxford.

But even if the public fails at these tasks, that's part of living in a democracy, is it not? The ability of a bicameral legislature to carry out it's duties rests on the public's choices on who they put there. If the public put in a bunch of utter incompetent morons into the Lower Chamber (Not suggesting that is what they have done at present.. Cough), there would be uproar over the suggestion that because of this, we should no longer allow the public to make such a mistake again.

Thoughts?

Out of interest, is there anyone who doesn't believe in a bicameral legislature?

[Darat]

I've never understood the reason for retaining the Lords since the 1949 Parliament act came into force and the then Tory majority went along with the "doctrine of the mandate". To all extent and purpose we only have one chamber making legislative decisions these days.

Saying that the House of Lords does at times act as a very good "second committee" scrutinising and suggesting amendments to legislation. Perhaps what we should look to do is move to a system in which that formally becomes the role of the "second chamber", then we could even recruit people to it based on merit rather than heredity or popularity...

[Meadmaker]

I think you folks ought to start electing your sovereigns, but that's just my opinion.

One thing that is wrong with America's implementation of the bicameral legislature is that it allows politicians to hide their real stand on issues. The House of Representatives pass one version of the bill. The Senate passes a different version. Then, they get together and compromise, changing the bill somewhat. The actual vote to send the bill to the President is, at that point, a quick procedural vote barely noticed.

The result is that sometimes politicians vote on things that they know darned well are never going to become law, but they brag about their support for the legislation.

[leftysergeant]

A lifetime appointment to anything is a bad idea for a nation. It takes a long time for us to be rid of worthless Supreme Court justices, for instance.

But maybe lifetime election for your House of lords might work.

Hard for me to say, not being British and being a bit baffled by the whole mess.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I like unicameral legislatures .

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think you folks ought to start electing your sovereigns..

One step at a time..

On that issue, I'm not a great fan of the superfluous President figure practised in Ireland, Israel and many Parliamentary democracies (Nor the superfluous Monarch). IMHO, It should be the Prime Minister, and only the Prime Minister who should sign the bill into law.

[Praktik]

Im Canadian and the subject has come up here because our Senate is also appointed - and generally quite powerless when it comes to legislating.

The idea gained some ground under the conservative wing of our politics over the last decades, ironically enough. But it has yet to really gain ground.

Part of its appeal is the fact that it seems on its face to be a very democratic thing to do - but what we're really talking about is changing the political dyamics of the way government works.

Looking south - we can see what results. Perhaps there are benefits but there are also drawbacks: a longer more conflict ridden legislative process for one.

I'm just not entirely sure that exchanging the present set of problems for another is warranted here in Canada.

[jimbob]

I would like the upper house to be chosen by a similar process to jury service (with an opt out if your name does come up).

It would be representative, but wouldn't be elected, so might be different to the Commons.

The current system is a joke

EDIT:
For the members from non Westminster-style democracies (e.g. US) The Commons has primacy, the Lords can delay legislation but it can be forced through after a period of time by invoking the Parliament Act

[lionking]

Australia's Senate is elected on a sort of proportional representation system and is full of party time-servers, backroom power-brokers and ex-union officials. Very few would get elected to the Lower House. It is far from ideal and the Senate was once (accurately) described as "unrepersentative swill" by ex PM Paul Keating. I think it's a waste of time and would prefer one house only.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by lionking

Australia's Senate is elected on a sort of proportional representation system and is full of party time-servers, backroom power-brokers and ex-union officials. Very few would get elected to the Lower House.

Ugh, Proportional Representation, really? Dreadful method.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Looking south - we can see what results. Perhaps there are benefits but there are also drawbacks: a longer more conflict ridden legislative process for one.

But is this because the Upper House is elected?

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by jimbob

EDIT:
For the members from non Westminster-style democracies (e.g. US) The Commons has primacy, the Lords can delay legislation but it can be forced through after a period of time by invoking the Parliament Act

But the Parliament Act cannot always be used, especially if a bill starts in the Lords itself.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

But is this because the Upper House is elected?

Not wholly of course, but making the upper house/senate elected means you are also increasing its powers. I would assume that if the senate doesn't pass something, it doesn't get passed.

So while the idea is that having legislation go through a "check" in both houses will mean better legislation - after all the thinking goes, more scutiny is always good.

But in practise what you're adding is another venue for stalling and conflict. Then there's the point where the senate and house bills need reconciling.

It adds more checkpoints on the road to final passage.

Surely there are other things that make the political process more conflict-ridden but I'm not convinced that adding more "checkpoints" is always a good thing, even if it sounds nice in theory.

I guess I haven't read too deeply into the british proposals - but could the senate bring down the government with a vote of "non confidence"? Or would it have to be something both houses have to agree on? I would imagine that if either house could on its own, that elections would be more frequent...

[EvilSmurf]

Originally Posted by lionking

Australia's Senate is elected on a sort of proportional representation system and is full of party time-servers, backroom power-brokers and ex-union officials.

Let's not forget people like Brian Harradine who got elected with around 24,000 votes and had the balance of power over the whole nation for a few years there.

[corplinx]

Our Senate was really meant as a dealmaker to get less populous states to go along with Federalism.

Don't democratize yours, just do away with it. Of course, democratizing is probably an easier task.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by corplinx

Don't democratize yours, just do away with it.

I don't know, I think a well-functioning Upper Chamber is essential for a working democratic system. It has the ability of slowing the passage of a bill down, and thus allows lawmakers to judge Bills on their content, rather than permitting them to pass quickly based on emotion alone (The proposed 42 Days of Detention without charge being dropped by the Lords, for example).

[hgc]

The US Senate is not an "upper house." There is a "state's house" and a "people's house." Neither house of Congress is intended to be superior to the other, though they have different duties. For instance, all spending measures must originate in the House, while the Senate approves treaties and presidential appointments to the Judiciary and many executive posts.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by Praktik

I guess I haven't read too deeply into the british proposals - but could the senate bring down the government with a vote of "non confidence"? Or would it have to be something both houses have to agree on? I would imagine that if either house could on its own, that elections would be more frequent...

I don't know what would happen there.. But I would hope that the elected Lords would have nothing to do with it. After all, IIRC, the Senate in the States are the ones who have the power to call a vote of no confidence (Impeachment, in more American terms) on the President, but have little say in the control of the lower chamber. I'd hope the same would happen here.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by hgc

The US Senate is not an "upper house." There is a "state's house" and a "people's house." Neither house of Congress is intended to be superior to the other, though they have different duties. For instance, all spending measures must originate in the House, while the Senate approves treaties and presidential appointments to the Judiciary and many executive posts.

Eh, I know people like to say that, but IMO the Senate was clearly meant to be an upper house. It was unelected as well, it had smaller membership, and its members served terms three times longer.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

I don't know, I think a well-functioning Upper Chamber is essential for a working democratic system. It has the ability of slowing the passage of a bill down, and thus allows lawmakers to judge Bills on their content, rather than permitting them to pass quickly based on emotion alone (The proposed 42 Days of Detention without charge being dropped by the Lords, for example).

Yes the Commons has a habit of trying to pass really bad legislation every so often, which even the hereditary House of Lords recognised as being wrong, and often too right-wing for a bunch of aristocrats...

That's why I want to keep some upper chamber.

It is better if it has a different character to the Commons, and I think this is best achieved if it is chosen from the citizens at random, for a fixed term, rather than being elected.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by hgc

The US Senate is not an "upper house." There is a "state's house" and a "people's house." Neither house of Congress is intended to be superior to the other, though they have different duties.

It was originally intended to be just that, with the wiser (What Madison called them) and superior members in the Upper house and the commoners residing in the Lower house.

[Praktik]

In any event, I'm probably more comfortable with abolishing the senate, than I am in favour of electing it. If people are turned off by the patronage aspects then let's just not have one, instead of changing up our politics for no reason (I dont see whats so deficient about the current legislative process).

Even so, sometimes lifetime appointments are earned: in Canada I point to Romeo Dallaire. If there was ever someone who deserved a cushy landing its him.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Eh, I know people like to say that, but IMO the Senate was clearly meant to be an upper house. It was unelected as well, it had smaller membership, and its members served terms three times longer.

I don't like to say it. I only say it because it's true.

It was unelected, etc, because it is supposed to represent the interests of states, thus state legislatures chose them instead of voters. None of the 3 reasons you provide mean to me that it's an upper house.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by jimbob

It is better if it has a different character to the Commons, and I think this is best achieved if it is chosen from the citizens at random, for a fixed term, rather than being elected.

So it would be the case that Mr Joey Joe CEO of Birmingham Drug and Alcohol Misuse would be called up for a term, or could it be anyone?

[gtc]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

I don't know what would happen there.. But I would hope that the elected Lords would have nothing to do with it. After all, IIRC, the Senate in the States are the ones who have the power to call a vote of no confidence (Impeachment, in more American terms) on the President, but have little say in the control of the lower chamber. I'd hope the same would happen here.

The governement of Australia is formed in the lower house not the Senate. So long as they have the support of the lower house, the government can continue. The Senate has the ability to refuse to pass the government's supply bills and obviously a government can't govern without money. This led to a stand-off in 1975 which was resolved by the Governor General making the opposition the care taker government and calling a double dissolution.

Legislation can, apparently, be introduced into the Australian Senate, but in practice it is only the occasional private members bill which is introduced there. I believe this is because any legislation introduced in the Senate would have to pass the lower house anyway.

The Senate has the power to reject legislation or pass it with ammendments which then has to go back to the lower house to be passed. There is usually horse trading to ensure that a bill gets passed. If it doesn't get passed, the government can eventually call a double dissolution election.

Despite them being ordinarily unelectable time servers, the Australian Senate seems to work about as well as any other system.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

So it would be the case that Mr Joey Joe CEO of Birmingham Drug and Alcohol Misuse would be called up for a term, or could it be anyone?

It is only an idea, but yes, anyone who is acceptable for jury service, but with more ability to turn the offer down, and a reasonable salary so that not too many would be forced to not serve due to financial considerations.

EDIT: In fact I would use the same system that choses jurors.

[jimbob]

On the US system:

A school friend studying politics pointed out to me that the US system could be regarded as similar to the UK system in the 18th Century.

The president is analogous to the king, who by then wasn't an absolute monarch as he had been partially tamed by Parliament in 1649 and 1688. However hew was still more powerful than now, indeed otherwise George III couldn't have lost most of the American Colonies

The Senate was analogous to the house of Lords, with far more power than the Lords has now, whilst Congress is analogous to the Commons, with less power relatively speaking than now.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by hgc

I don't like to say it. I only say it because it's true.

I'm not sure it is.

"The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom, than the popular branch."
-James Madison

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Ugh, Proportional Representation, really? Dreadful method.

I said "sort of" because it is a proportional system in each state, but all states elect the same number of senators, regardless of the size of the state. Tasmania, with about 400,000, people has 12 senators while NSW, with 6,000,000 or so also has 12.

Unrepresentatuve swill indeed.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

One of the frequent arguments against an elected House of Lords is as follows:

I find that argument quite unpersuasive. A governing body, however elected or selected, should have the power to draw upon specialized expertise as needed. That does not imply that that expertise has to be given legislative authority.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

I don't know, I think a well-functioning Upper Chamber is essential for a working democratic system. It has the ability of slowing the passage of a bill down, and thus allows lawmakers to judge Bills on their content, rather than permitting them to pass quickly based on emotion alone.

I agree but I don't think the USA approach to populating the Senate is a good idea. As corplinx pointed out, it was a sop to the smaller states to get them behind constitution. The result today is that the smaller states have power way beyond the population level that they represent. In the USA, since most small states are more rural and conservative, the net effect is that conservative voices have more sway. For example, the recent group of six that negotiated the Baucus health bill contained three Republican from Iowa, Montana and Maine. These states represent a tiny fraction of the whole country and are certainly not representative of the country.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by jimbob

On the US system:

A school friend studying politics pointed out to me that the US system could be regarded as similar to the UK system in the 18th Century.

The president is analogous to the king, who by then wasn't an absolute monarch as he had been partially tamed by Parliament in 1649 and 1688. However hew was still more powerful than now, indeed otherwise George III couldn't have lost most of the American Colonies

The Senate was analogous to the house of Lords, with far more power than the Lords has now, whilst Congress is analogous to the Commons, with less power relatively speaking than now.

This is said quite a lot, including in schools in the United States. However, I don't think it is a very accurate description. Legislatively, the two sides are almost equal. The Senate has a big boost in that they can do confirmations and treaty ratifications. On the other hand, tax bills have to originate in the House, which is a huge deal.

We tend to think of senators as being more elite than Representatives, because there are more of them, but this was not true when the Constitution was ratified. At that time, their numbers were equal.

I once read an article in Smithsonian magazine about John Adams trying to push that view of things. He was in the Senate at the time. (Or was he our first Vice President, and therefore President of the Senate?) He published a list of rules of how House members must behave toward Senators, and it was quite bizarre, complete with European style titles of rank and requirements for House members to bow to Senators and such. As I recall the article, the House basically ignored him, and sort of informed him that we won the war and didn't have to do that silly English stuff. I'll google to see if I can find a reference.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

But the Parliament Act cannot always be used, especially if a bill starts in the Lords itself.

Which is really nothing more than a "mechanism of convenience" Parliament is practically as well as constitutionally supreme.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Surely this argument shows a complete distrust in the public to make these decisions?

Not a complete distrust, but a recognition that checks and balances aren't checks or balances if they merely replicate the will of an elected parliament and are behoven to the same mechanism of selection and accountability.

Hence the Bank of England's monetary committee is not elected, neither are QCs or law lords, neither is the head of the police, neither is [ . . . ]

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by lionking

Australia's Senate is elected on a sort of proportional representation system and is full of party time-servers, backroom power-brokers and ex-union officials. Very few would get elected to the Lower House. It is far from ideal and the Senate was once (accurately) described as "unrepersentative swill" by ex PM Paul Keating. I think it's a waste of time and would prefer one house only.

Maybe we could sell it to another country that thinks it needs one?

Actually the federal upper house is not nearly as effing pointless as the state upper houses. Now there is classic example of a waste of oxygen....

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by The Fool

Maybe we could sell it to another country that thinks it needs one?

Actually the federal upper house is not nearly as effing pointless as the state upper houses. Now there is classic example of a waste of oxygen....

When I was doing year twelve politics 3 years ago, my teacher advised us all to run for the Victorian senate, since you get paid heaps to do nothing.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by The Fool

Maybe we could sell it to another country that thinks it needs one?

Actually the federal upper house is not nearly as effing pointless as the state upper houses. Now there is classic example of a waste of oxygen....

Nebraska has led in that regard where no other US state has followed. They also have the tallest state capitol.

[Puppycow]

How about replacing the lords with benevolent robot overseers!

[gtc]

Originally Posted by hgc

Nebraska has led in that regard where no other US state has followed. They also have the tallest state capitol.

Queensland in Australia has also abolished its upper house.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Surely this argument shows a complete distrust in the public to make these decisions? There is no reason there cannot be a 'Draft Richard Dawkins' campaign by a section of the public, only for Lord Dawkins to be sworn in for Oxford.

But even if the public fails at these tasks, that's part of living in a democracy, is it not? The ability of a bicameral legislature to carry out it's duties rests on the public's choices on who they put there. If the public put in a bunch of utter incompetent morons into the Lower Chamber (Not suggesting that is what they have done at present.. Cough), there would be uproar over the suggestion that because of this, we should no longer allow the public to make such a mistake again.

The purpose of a country's governmental system should be to provide said country with the highest possible quality of government - not to make it as democratic as possible.

Pure democracy equates to mob-rule, which makes very poor government, and that's why every democratic country includes non-democratic elements. On the other hand, high quality government requires democratic mechanisms, as evidenced by the fact that non-democracies tend to be poorly governed.

But democracy is the method, not the goal.