Image by .craig via Flickr
Gordon Brown has pledged to reform the electoral system. Is this a desperate attempt of a failing government to hold onto some power, or a genuine recognition that the system at present is flawed and unfair? Whatever the reasons, one cannot doubt that the latter is true - the system at present is totally unfair and unrepresentative.
At present, the UK parliament has two houses, the House of Commons (or lower house) and the house of Lords (Upper House). In contrast to many Western democracies, only one of these - the House of Commons - is elected by the people. The house of Lords is made of hereditary peers (who may pass their title onto eldest sons), Life peers (those made by parliament, for example all past Prime Ministers) and spiritual peers (the 26 Bishops of the Church of England). However, since the House of Lords Act 1999, all hereditary peers must enter an election for one of 92 seats. This means that many members of our Upper Chamber have no political experience, or have been appointed by a government voted out several terms ago. This surely flies in the face of the principle of a democratic government?
There are already a few very good books out there on the subject, and if you're interested, I'd highly recommend 'UK Elections and Electoral reform' and 'Principles of Electoral reform'.
I would like to see both Houses of Parliament fully-elected, with the Lower House elected by SVT (single transferable vote) in a single-member constituency, and the Upper house elected by PR (proportional representation). This would means that we still have a directly-elected MP in the Lower House, as well as a fairly system of representation in the upper house, whilst our MP would be able to command majority support, where at the moment a seat with 5 candidates could easily send a member to Westminster with 20.1% of the vote. hardly the will of the people is it?
At present, the UK parliament has two houses, the House of Commons (or lower house) and the house of Lords (Upper House). In contrast to many Western democracies, only one of these - the House of Commons - is elected by the people. The house of Lords is made of hereditary peers (who may pass their title onto eldest sons), Life peers (those made by parliament, for example all past Prime Ministers) and spiritual peers (the 26 Bishops of the Church of England). However, since the House of Lords Act 1999, all hereditary peers must enter an election for one of 92 seats. This means that many members of our Upper Chamber have no political experience, or have been appointed by a government voted out several terms ago. This surely flies in the face of the principle of a democratic government?
There are already a few very good books out there on the subject, and if you're interested, I'd highly recommend 'UK Elections and Electoral reform' and 'Principles of Electoral reform'.
I would like to see both Houses of Parliament fully-elected, with the Lower House elected by SVT (single transferable vote) in a single-member constituency, and the Upper house elected by PR (proportional representation). This would means that we still have a directly-elected MP in the Lower House, as well as a fairly system of representation in the upper house, whilst our MP would be able to command majority support, where at the moment a seat with 5 candidates could easily send a member to Westminster with 20.1% of the vote. hardly the will of the people is it?
References:
Smith, Neil (2006) UK Elections and Electoral reform, Phillip Allen
Dummett, Michael(1997) Principles of Electoral reform Oxford: Oxford University Press
No comments:
Post a Comment