5 ms·

Having an apolitical (or unelected) and slow changing second chamber is a useful counterbalance to elected officials running amok. There’s no “great” answer to

by andy99 1y ago

Having an apolitical (or unelected) and slow changing second chamber is a useful counterbalance to elected officials running amok. There’s no “great” answer to this that I’m aware of but it has been a viable compromise.

hammock 1y ago
Another compromise in the same vein was (until 1913) the U.S. Senate, elected by the state legislature rather than direct election and for terms 2.5x as long as that of a House rep
- rgblambda 1y ago
  To me (a non-American), that actually makes a kind of sense. Have people in the federal Congress whose job is to speak for their respective state governments. Instead of duplicating the House of Representatives with different electoral boundaries. Quite like the European Council. Well if it was the state governors flying in to DC once a month, so maybe not exactly like it.
- threemux 1y ago
  A hot take I support is that switching to popular election of Senators was a mistake. We should go back to the state legislature method.
- gshubert17 1y ago
  3 times as long (6 years for the Senate vs 2 years for the House)
lostlogin 1y ago
Apolitical? Hardly. They are literally politicians, just unelected. It’s all the worst aspects of elected officials with added nepotism and no ability to remove them. It’s monarchy-lite.
- andy99 1y ago
  They are not political appointees, so have a lower chance of being correlated with whatever movement of the moment and so serve as checks and balances. The fact that they can’t be replaced is a feature.
  - rgblambda 1y ago
    Technically they are mostly affiliated with one or other political party. It's even a convention for the internal elections that select which peers sit in the Lords, to only have candidates from the same party as the one being replaced, to maintain the ratio set by New Labour in the nineties.
    - andy99 1y ago
      Was that always the case? I took from TFA that some number are purely hereditary and that all of them used to be before a recent reform. Or was it that one has to be a hereditary peer in order to be a government appointee? Either way, the greater the barrier to the house of sober second thought being stacked by whoever is currently in power, the better. I’d also favor people being randomly appointed for life.
      - Nursie 1y ago
        The hereditary peers are now a much smaller bunch, apparently there are 92, elected from the larger number of 800ish who are theoretically eligible. Before 1993 all of them could hold seats. The majority of the house these days is made up of life-appointed peers, who are nominated to the house by the commons. There are also 24 bishops. There are moves afoot to remove the last hereditary peers, though I’m not sure of the current status of that bill. If Labour get re-elected in a few years, they have made muttering about further second-house reform, but no plans or commitments at present
      - rgblambda 1y ago
        I was speaking purely of the 92 hereditary peers.
griffzhowl 1y ago
> Having an apolitical (or unelected) and slow changing second chamber is a useful counterbalance to elected officials running amok. Then just have people chosen at random from birth to become lords. That makes as much sense, unless what you're interested in is a mechanism that helps powerful families to remain powerful
specialist 1y ago
The USA's Fedederal vetocracy gauntlet is composed of Senate, POTUS, and SCOTUS. I'm very curious about comparisions between governing systems. But am noob, so haven't gotten very far. I too value -- without evidence pro or con -- some balance between fast, slow, and middling. Senate was designed to counter balance the House. I'm very skeptical of its benefit; both in principle and in practice. Our State's patchwork of arrangements is probably informative, in the small. Somehow rank States by legislative output, (their) Supreme Court's actions, lag time in pivoting to adopt norms (marriage equality), or some such. There's a Harvard researcher (on mobile, can find cites later if needed) who concluded that most all national (democratic) govts eventually adopted norms. On the time span of decades and generations. Regardless of their system. Strongly suggesting that public pressure and need to maintain legitimacy do matter. I've since wondered if we're just too impatient. I certainly am. Or if that thesis is even true. For example, the USA's Jim Crow era endured for 100+ years. And still remains contested. Would appreciate any insights any has to share.

by andy99 1y ago

hammock 1y ago

Another compromise in the same vein was (until 1913) the U.S. Senate, elected by the state legislature rather than direct election and for terms 2.5x as long as that of a House rep

rgblambda 1y ago
To me (a non-American), that actually makes a kind of sense. Have people in the federal Congress whose job is to speak for their respective state governments. Instead of duplicating the House of Representatives with different electoral boundaries. Quite like the European Council. Well if it was the state governors flying in to DC once a month, so maybe not exactly like it.
threemux 1y ago
A hot take I support is that switching to popular election of Senators was a mistake. We should go back to the state legislature method.
gshubert17 1y ago
3 times as long (6 years for the Senate vs 2 years for the House)

lostlogin 1y ago

Apolitical? Hardly. They are literally politicians, just unelected. It’s all the worst aspects of elected officials with added nepotism and no ability to remove them. It’s monarchy-lite.

andy99 1y ago
They are not political appointees, so have a lower chance of being correlated with whatever movement of the moment and so serve as checks and balances. The fact that they can’t be replaced is a feature.
- rgblambda 1y ago
  Technically they are mostly affiliated with one or other political party. It's even a convention for the internal elections that select which peers sit in the Lords, to only have candidates from the same party as the one being replaced, to maintain the ratio set by New Labour in the nineties.
  - andy99 1y ago
    Was that always the case? I took from TFA that some number are purely hereditary and that all of them used to be before a recent reform. Or was it that one has to be a hereditary peer in order to be a government appointee? Either way, the greater the barrier to the house of sober second thought being stacked by whoever is currently in power, the better. I’d also favor people being randomly appointed for life.
    - Nursie 1y ago
      The hereditary peers are now a much smaller bunch, apparently there are 92, elected from the larger number of 800ish who are theoretically eligible. Before 1993 all of them could hold seats. The majority of the house these days is made up of life-appointed peers, who are nominated to the house by the commons. There are also 24 bishops. There are moves afoot to remove the last hereditary peers, though I’m not sure of the current status of that bill. If Labour get re-elected in a few years, they have made muttering about further second-house reform, but no plans or commitments at present
    - rgblambda 1y ago
      I was speaking purely of the 92 hereditary peers.

griffzhowl 1y ago

> Having an apolitical (or unelected) and slow changing second chamber is a useful counterbalance to elected officials running amok. Then just have people chosen at random from birth to become lords. That makes as much sense, unless what you're interested in is a mechanism that helps powerful families to remain powerful

specialist 1y ago

The USA's Fedederal vetocracy gauntlet is composed of Senate, POTUS, and SCOTUS. I'm very curious about comparisions between governing systems. But am noob, so haven't gotten very far. I too value -- without evidence pro or con -- some balance between fast, slow, and middling. Senate was designed to counter balance the House. I'm very skeptical of its benefit; both in principle and in practice. Our State's patchwork of arrangements is probably informative, in the small. Somehow rank States by legislative output, (their) Supreme Court's actions, lag time in pivoting to adopt norms (marriage equality), or some such. There's a Harvard researcher (on mobile, can find cites later if needed) who concluded that most all national (democratic) govts eventually adopted norms. On the time span of decades and generations. Regardless of their system. Strongly suggesting that public pressure and need to maintain legitimacy do matter. I've since wondered if we're just too impatient. I certainly am. Or if that thesis is even true. For example, the USA's Jim Crow era endured for 100+ years. And still remains contested. Would appreciate any insights any has to share.