Well, the Commons was debating today about the future of the HoL (possibly tomorrow as well, not sure). The govt report above details the options (Part 5); personally I'm in favour of option 1, which is similar to the Canadian Senate (I think). This is basically because it will keep the crossbenchers (the most important part of the HoL and possibly Parliament) and also keeps down the number of politicians, which can only be a good thing.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Very interesting, Wraithy, but - from past experience of such discussions - don't expect too many responses. The Yanks only care about their own political system, and how they can force it on others. I suppose you can't blame the poor little mites, really, once they've managed to understand how Electoral Colleges work there's not a lot of room left in their brains for much else than celebrity gossip. 8)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well really, your governmental system is quite odd. Lords that aren't lords, Commons that aren't commoners, and people who actually say "Hem" and "Haw" when they hem and haw.
Plus the text of the article is so dry, it's hard to stay awake long enough to decipher what they're planning from the original Britlegalese into American English.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
It could be argued that your Representatives aren't particularly representative, nor your President particularly presidential
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
And we drive on parkways and park in driveways!
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
dia-bolical!
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
VP: yeah, I thought that'd be the case. Still, can't help but try to educate the poor things. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: It could be argued that your Representatives aren't particularly representative, nor your President particularly presidential
It could also be argued that their Queen isn't particularly royalty either, though, right? Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I don't think you've quite got this, have you?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
So does anyone actually have an opinion on this? At all? After all it is the most important contitutional change in the UK for decades!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Sorry. Though I do my best to keep on top of international affairs, quite frankly keeping track of our OWN archaic domestic politics is so difficult that I can't really spend much time figuring out other countries' archaic domestic politics.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
British government makes my brain hurt. I mean, you people have a monarch who does nothing but wear funny hats and wave at people rather than any sort of governing whatsoever. Explain the point of that.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, she's not about to invade country A for something done by someone from (and funded by) country B, who also doesn't like country A either. That's got to count for something. And. . . wait a minute, why am I defending the Royal Family? Fuck 'em.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, she's not about to invade country A for something done by someone from (and funded by) country B, who also doesn't like country A either.
Point. But then again, if that's the standard for a good ruler, then I can't think of any bad ones.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: British government makes my brain hurt. I mean, you people have a monarch who does nothing but wear funny hats and wave at people rather than any sort of governing whatsoever. Explain the point of that.
Tourism.
Now you explain the electoral college.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Er... Ah... Um...
Damn you.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The electoral college increases the statistical value of the individual's vote.
I read (well, glanced at) an interesting book about the governments of Europe written during and, as I recall, published shortly after WWII. (With special: "Hey, we are not dead!" preface.) It had an interesting take on the role of the monarchy in then modern Britain.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
...and one of the most important functions of the monarchy is keeping a politician out of the top spot! I am not fond of politicians. At all. Mind you, we've got to have 'em, but we should at least keep them in one place! Not to mention the monarchy provides an element of dignity to the proceedings which is lacking in republics. And they don't cost that much really.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Not to mention the monarchy provides an element of dignity to the proceedings
That calls for a mighty big "Ermm..."
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
its alright to cheat and lie.. as long as you do it with DIGNITY!
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
/me prefers a king or queen chosen through birthright with no political power to an elected president with more power than is healthy for any human
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The Electoral college is easy... kinda. In principle, the general elections are basically all eligible citizens choosing a "representative" to vote for the President. The various representatives (meeting on a state-by-state basis) comprise the Electoral College. States are assigned a number of electoral votes based on the total number of seats they have in both houses of Congress. Since the House of Representatives is based on representation by population, and so that becomes the primary determining factor.
Yeah, it's way convoluted. But it was also thought up in the year 1789, back when the Framers hated the monarchy, but didn't want to hand over the Presidency directly to the people. They weren't what we'd consider left-wing democrats, after all... Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by E. Cartman: /me prefers a king or queen chosen through birthright with no political power to an elected president with more power than is healthy for any human
Absolutely; politicians tend to get all macho when you give them titles like commander in chief anyway. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...and one of the most important functions of the monarchy is keeping a politician out of the top spot!"
What "top spot"? The monarch is powerless, so that isn't a "top spot". If you even have a "top spot", wouldn't it be the prime minister, who, at last check, was a politician?
The problem w/ the electoral college is that it opens the possibility that someone can win the presidency and have fewer popular votes than the runner-up. I can't think of any logical reason why this should ever be allowed to happen.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Head of state and head of government are not the same thing.
The "power" of the monarchy in the UK is not supposed to be political anymore. Of course, today it is arguable whether or not they have any of their more elusive symbolic power, or whether such is even necessary.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
I think the US electoral college would work better if the votes from each state were divided between the amount of votes each party was given. This winner take all is not representative at all.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yes, Grokca, that's one of the things people argue. I read a book for a Poli-Sci class a couple of years ago about theories on proportional representation. Of all the theories I've read, the "winner take all" arrangement is one of the least logical, IMO.
One of the best ideas I've heard is for several representatives to be elected in each district (and have larger districts as a result). For example, if you're going to have elections for five seats in the House of Representatives, rather than split the section into five districts for each of the five seats, all five seats are up for grabs on an "at large" basis, and votes are cast for more than one candidate. The result is said (in theory) to be more representative because the majority of the votes will still go to the most popular candidate, but the minority will still get representation because there's more than one seat available.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I can't believe this thread is so old - as soon as I read the article below, this discussion popped into my head.
I thinik it's ingenious. The second chamber gets apportioned by proportional representation. There could still be problems, though, as the political parties would likely choose people fanatically loyal to the party, and unlikely to go against the party line.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, much as I hate to prove you right, I really don't think I can take the time to make sense of this, because I don't know how the British government works. Which is because I'm still having enough trouble figuring out the US one.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
OK, simple: The country is divided up into about 630 parliamentary constituencies. During elections each of these votes for their Member of Parliament (MP), and whichever candidate from whichever party gets the most votes is the winner. The Government is then formed by the party which has the largest number of MPs. It doesn't have to be an overall majority (more than 50% of the House of Commons) in theory but in practise it's required otherwise the Government would never be able to win Commons votes.
Fine so far? Now, some people, the Liberal Democrat party in particular, have said for a long time that this system doesn't accurately represent the will of the people, because, try as the boundary commission might, there are still variances in the number of voters in each constituency. They want the House of Commons to be apportioned according to the percentage of the electoral votes each party received nationwide. This is proportional representation (PR), and no government in power would go for it because a) despite winning on number of seats, every recent goverment in PR terms has received less than 50% of the total votes and so would have no overall majority; b) the Lib Dems' fraction of parliament would rise enormously, making them the likely party to form a coalition government with if the party in power is to be able to govern at all - but at the cost of compromise over policy. Countries like Italy do use PR, and think how many coalition governments they've had.
Bragg is suggesting that the House of Lords, to be renamed the Second Chamber, be appointed using PR. OK?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"During elections each of these votes for their Member of Parliament (MP), and whichever candidate from whichever party gets the most votes is the winner."
So, does each district have a Lord and a Common? Or do some have one and some have others? I thought the Lords weren't even elected?
"The Government is then formed by the party which has the largest number of MPs."
Define "Government". I mean, the Parliament is part of the government, isn't it?
"They want the House of Commons to be apportioned according to the percentage of the electoral votes each party received nationwide."
So, is this sort of an "at-large" representation? People wouldn't vote for a representative for their specific area, but they would just cast a vote for a party? If 50% of the country voted for Party X, then 315 Xs would be assigned seats? If 30% voted for Party Y, then 189 Ys would be assigned seats?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:So, does each district have a Lord and a Common? Or do some have one and some have others? I thought the Lords weren't even elected?
No, the Lords have nothing whatosever to do with the proces that fills the Commons. In there, originally, you have the hereditary Peers (peers created at some point in the past, but who have the right of dynastic succession); Life Peers (peers created in their own lifetime, but whose peerage dies with them - these are the most common types of new peer created, the most recently-created hereditary peer I can recall was Harold MacMillan, PM in the 1960s); and the Law Lords (Hutton of the recent whitewash being one of them). Lords are generally Lord of somewhere, I think of their own choosing - e.g., Lord Jeffrey Archer of Weston-super-Mare!
I don't know if there were any rules restricting the number of members of the House of Lords, either.
quote:Define "Government". I mean, the Parliament is part of the government, isn't it?
Again, no. I supose what we call the Government, you'd call the Administration. The Government are the poeple who actually do stuff, having been asked by the Queen to form a Government. It is "Her Majesty's Government," according to the traditions. The rest of Parliament is effectively there to act as a check on the Government; think of it as though your President was in fact the House Majority Leader, and the President was more of a symbolic Head of State the way the Queen is. I think!
quote:So, is this sort of an "at-large" representation? People wouldn't vote for a representative for their specific area, but they would just cast a vote for a party? If 50% of the country voted for Party X, then 315 Xs would be assigned seats? If 30% voted for Party Y, then 189 Ys would be assigned seats?
There are so many different models of PR theory that could be applied to the Commons, I can't keep track. I've no idea what happens in the case of other countries which use PR, either. But the scenario you're describing is what they propose to do in the Lords at any rate. These MSCs wouldn't be tied to a particular area (although I guess the parties would find it encumbent on themselves to try to get people from all areas to occupy seats).
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes. The lib dems want it because there is a feeling that voting for the lib dems is a "wasted vote". People have the tories, love the lib dems, but will vote labour in their area purely because they want to keep the tories out, and are worried that if the vote ends up being split between the lib dems and labour, then the tories would have enough overall to get in. Liverpool is one such area. They hate the tories with a passion (because of evil Maggie), but they all vote labour rather than any other party, just to prevent the tories from winning.
It has been argued that if proportional representation was bought in, a large number of peeople would switch to Lib Dem, purely because it would no longer be a "wasted vote".
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"lib dems" count = 4. "Lib Dem" count = 1.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:So, is this sort of an "at-large" representation? People wouldn't vote for a representative for their specific area, but they would just cast a vote for a party? If 50% of the country voted for Party X, then 315 Xs would be assigned seats? If 30% voted for Party Y, then 189 Ys would be assigned seats?
Well, that's how it works over here, only there are just 150 seats up for grabs and nine parties spread out across the political spectrum all vying vor them, which in practice often means coalitions have to be formed that aren't at all representative of the outcome of an election.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
OK. So how then are seats assigned to individual party members to represent their party's percentage? Is there any link between seats and geographical areas? Do you vote for people, or parties?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I supose what we call the Government, you'd call the Administration. The Government are the poeple who actually do stuff, having been asked by the Queen to form a Government."
So, in other words, the "Government" is like our President (= Prime Minister) and Cabinet (= other ministers: defense, silly walks, etc.). Except that, in your case, the ministers are chosen by the Parliament, while our Cabinet is chosen by the President.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Essentially. Except the Ministers are all MPs, and are chosen by the Prime Minister. Plus, not all Ministers are in the Cabinet, and there are several ministers who are actually from the House of Lords. I'm not sure how or why, but I assume it's so that when a Bill reaches the stage when it comes before the Lords, there's a Government representative to read it to the Lords and debate in its favour.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"So how then are seats assigned to individual party members to represent their party's percentage?"
First, the total number of votes is divided by the number of seats (which is fixed). The resulting figure is the election divisor. Then the number of votes each party has gathered is split by that divisor to determine how many Second Chamber seats that party can occupy.
Now, during the national (Second Chamber) elections every party also supplies its own candidates for the position of MP, people cast votes for them based on whom they'd most like as their representatives, and then they slug it out amongst themselves to disburse the seats. B)
"Is there any link between seats and geographical areas?"
No, not anymore. There are twelve provinces that hold elections every two years (they in turn elect the First Chamber), but the coloration of a province almost never reflects the final composition of the Second Chamber, because the country is organized in 19 election zones of equal population size to ensure proper regional diffusion.
"Do you vote for people, or parties?"
Both.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It'll all be so much easier to understand once you're a U.S. territory.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Sometimes I think we already are.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Essentially. Except the Ministers are all MPs, and are chosen by the Prime Minister. Plus, not all Ministers are in the Cabinet, and there are several ministers who are actually from the House of Lords. I'm not sure how or why, but I assume it's so that when a Bill reaches the stage when it comes before the Lords, there's a Government representative to read it to the Lords and debate in its favour.
Ministers traditionally have to be "members of Parliament" in the literal sense - i.e. members of one of the two Houses. (This isn't a legal requirement, though, and it would be entirely legally (if not politically) possible to have a Minister who was neither a Lord nor an MP.) In fact, the second most important member of the Cabinet, the Lord Chancellor, is always a Lord. It's always useful for the Government to have Ministers in both Houses, because a Bill has to be passed by both of them, and it's always good to have important people arguing for you at both stages of the debate.
For the record, I'm in favour of the House of Lords being how it was before 1999 - roughly half hereditary peers and half life peers. I think a wholly appointed House is an absolutely awful idea, and a wholly elected one would remove the whole point of the House of Lords - to be a more permanent check on the House of Commons, not subject to the yearly shifts in national political opinion. If it were elected, the Lords would be constantly worrying about the next election, just like the Commons, and would make the decisions they thought would be popular rather than those they thought were right. There's also the political issue - if they are elected, they'll be elected as members of a political party, and will feel obliged to tow the party line on every issue, regardless of their own opinions, which can't be a good thing.
To be honest, I'm not surprised Tony Blair wants to change the House of Lords - before 1999 it was an independent body that judged prospective legislation on its merits rather than political considerations, and now it's going to end up either wholly appointed by him with the people he knows will support him or elected with members who will be open to the same kind of political blackmail as MPs.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, first of all, I'd sooner have a second chamber that we have some say in choosing, rather than an elitist group whose thinking is often based on the century before last; secondly, you think past Governments haven't tried to fill the place with their supporters? Look at how many ex-ministers from the last Conservative government were made life peers! Even Archer, and they all knew he was a crook!
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Well, first of all, I'd sooner have a second chamber that we have some say in choosing, rather than an elitist group whose thinking is often based on the century before last;
Actually, if you watch the proceedings of the House of Lords, they are a lot more concerned with the people than the House of Commons is. The Commons tend to vote based on what their party wants, whereas the Lords are concerned mostly with the bigger picture. To take a recent example, by far the biggest objections to the new anti-terrorist laws came from the Lords - the Commons just caved in to the Government's "we need to lock everyone up or we're all going to die!" threats, while the Lords objected that civil rights would be infringed in hundreds of ways. Similarly, the new Top-Up Fees legislation, which the people generally don't want, will most likely be rejected by the Lords, while the Commons, the ones who actually made manifesto pledges not to introduce the fees, let it through.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: secondly, you think past Governments haven't tried to fill the place with their supporters? Look at how many ex-ministers from the last Conservative government were made life peers! Even Archer, and they all knew he was a crook!
It's a lot harder to fill the House of Lords with supporters when there are 700 people whose seat there is hereditary and will be taken by their heir, not your appointee, when they die.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Of course, in a world that made that least bit of sense, it would be the hereditary leaders who do whatever the hell they want, because they don't have to worry about losing their jobs. The elected leaders would have to try their hardest to do what's right, because, otherwise, the people would vote them out.
Of course, when has an electorate ever considered a silly thing like fitness for leadership?
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Of course, in a world that made that least bit of sense, it would be the hereditary leaders who do whatever the hell they want, because they don't have to worry about losing their jobs. The elected leaders would have to try their hardest to do what's right, because, otherwise, the people would vote them out.
The country is still led by an MP. Most of the Cabinet are MPs. The House of Lords is just a check on them. If we were living in the 19th century, when the Lords really did control the country, then you'd have a point, but the power of the Lords has been restricted so much that their only real function is to check and provide further debate on legislation passed by the Commons, a function that they performed rather well before 1999.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Of course, when has an electorate ever considered a silly thing like fitness for leadership?
In the UK, not since the 1960s, probably.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Wow, the thread is resurrected!!
I also have problems with an elected upper house. The influence of the parties in the Commons and ergo on the government is already so strong I feel that a second, party controlled, chamber would be prejudicial to the national interest. A major problem with PR is, as pointed out, that we would be perpetually ruled by a Labour/Lib Dem coalition. And yes, the government of the day will try to 'pack' the chamber with its own supporters, but at least there's the liklihood that at least some will have a measure of independance. The 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts restrict the power of the Lords so much that it can't really be said to be an elite overpowering the interests of the masses.
As to the structure of the UK government, the position of president is split between the Crown (Head of State) and PM (Head of govt.) but the Cabinet is much more important to the UK govt than in the US system. Technically, anyway; it often depends on the personality of the PM, Maggie and The Dear Leader have both been criticised for being too presidential. Most ministers these days are MPs but many are Lords, often because they were experts in the relevant field prior to their enoblement.
The 1999 Parliament Act was a silly, ill thought out gesture by Blair to the left of the Labour party (since abandoned to its fate). The hereditaries weren't actually that bad; Labour and the Lib Dems just have this silly ideological dislike of them. They didn't consider the fact that most of the debates in the Lords were (and in many cases still are) far more academic and far reaching than those in the Commons, which are usually driven by Party needs. Yes, some of the Lords are tossers (Archer) and some are rich, arrogant tossers, but most are OK. Many of the hereditaries (although by no means all) are motivated by a sense of duty, far better than the petty Party and ideological concerns of most MPs. Basically, if they'd just made the expenses dependant on Lords pitching up to 25% of debates (far more than most MPs-Blair is at about 7%) then that would've reduced the Lords to those who actually cared (well, mostly).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)