5 ms·

The point of the hereditary peerage was the same as the point of having a non-elected Senate. Now both will have been lost in the name of "democracy" - a system

The point of the hereditary peerage was the same as the point of having a non-elected Senate. Now both will have been lost in the name of "democracy" - a system of government that constantly fails to do either what is the desire of the people OR what is truly in their interests. From here on out it'll just be whoever manages to connive their way into power through connections, payola, corruption, island meetups, and so on. I strongly suspect this will lead to a worse government, not a better one.

Chinjut 7mo ago
The Senate is, while not the whole story, a significant part of the reason the government constantly fails to do what is either the desire of the people or what's in their interests. I wouldn't lament losing the Senate.
- jfengel 7mo ago
  The US Senate is designed to check and balance the House of Representatives. But that often puts the Congress as a whole in deadlock, meaning it can no longer balance the other two branches. When they could get anything done they delegated a lot of power to the Executive. Which worked ok, but eventually a "unitary executive" appropriated even more power, and the Legislature is powerless to prevent it.
  - pjc50 7mo ago
    Unpopular opinion: deadlock is fine. Most legislation is bad. What really matters is the budget. And the rule that failing to pass a budget can automatically force an election avoids the absurd US "shutdown" that isn't a shutdown.
    - fc417fc802 7mo ago
      This is now my second favorite idea, after a nationwide ban of first past the post voting schemes. My third (previously second) is outlawing political parties. The problem with that one is it would be really difficult to implement in a way that doesn't run afoul of freedom of association and freedom of speech. Probably worth figuring out though.
      - jfengel 7mo ago
        I don't think it can be figured out. Every democratic country has political parties.
        fc417fc802 7mo ago
        True but I think much could be done to blunt their impact if we collectively put our minds to it.
      - inglor_cz 7mo ago
        People really love to create associations, and if "parties" are banned, "movements" or "clubs" that are "totally-not-parties" will take their place. We are too gregarious to prevent emergence of political groups. A parliament of cats would probably be more individualistic, but not that of humans.
      - rgblambda 7mo ago
        Voting system reform would probably mitigate the worst aspects of political parties. Egypt after ousting Mubarak held an election where a third of seats were reserved for independents. Most winning candidates were just Muslim Brotherhood affiliated. I suspect the military interim government did that deliberately to justify their later coup.
      - perilunar 7mo ago
        You don't need to outlaw parties, just remove any privileges and powers they have.
    - jfengel 7mo ago
      Deadlock would be fine if the other two branches weren't running amuck.
      - pjc50 7mo ago
        Not a problem in the UK system, although the PM has a lot of power he is very much removable if the party doesn't support it.
        hunterpayne 7mo ago
        Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't members of the current PM's party publicly saying he needs to step down right now?
        pjc50 7mo ago
        Yes. They can say what they like, but until they can find 167 votes from Labour MPs to remove him, he stays. https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Commons https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Commons This is where the intra-party coalitions become important. Every party of significant size has them. Labour is effectively a coalition between a rightwing faction (New Labour/Blue Labour) and everyone else who is more leftwing. The internal and external debate is the question: should they focus "right" (immigrant and queerbashing, welfare cuts) to appease the right wing of the party and try to pick up Reform/Conservative voters, or focus "left" on their base and people who are switching to Green?
    - dralley 7mo ago
      On the other hand, voting needs to mean something. If voting doesn't mean anything, because the whole system is held in a vice grip by a sclerotic institution playing power games with itself, then the broader system eventually collapses. My personal opinion is that Mitch McConnell's intransigence and unwillingness to do anything lest Obama get credit for it led directly to an increased desire for a "strongman"
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  Aren't you supporting parent's point? The senate is elected these days after all ...
  - Chinjut 7mo ago
    The Senate gives a rather disproportionate democracy in which the votes of a small number in small states take on disproportionate significance compared to the votes of a large number in populous states.
    - fc417fc802 7mo ago
      That still does nothing to refute the parent's complaint about democracy. Lopsided representation is still representation (as opposed to a council of nobles or military generals or whoever). Also the thing you're objecting to is literally the entire point of the senate from day one. It was intended to give less populous states an equal voice in contrast to the house of representatives. Unfortunately history happened and the house of representatives hasn't been proportional for a long time. But if you're going to complain about something it should probably be the latter rather than the former.
- crooked-v 7mo ago
  The Senate was fundamentally from the start a compromise in favor of the slave-owning ogliarchy. You just have to look at free and slave states being admitted in pairs to preserve the status quo of slavery to see how that went.
tartoran 7mo ago
Why would a hereditary system work any better? Plenty of monarchies based on heredity ran themselves into the ground.
- theodric 7mo ago
  It provides an additional check. Much like a monarch, a noble's interests are tied to the welfare of the country itself. Without the country, they're just a toff with some money and an overinflated sense of self-importance.
  - pkaodev 7mo ago
    This is the most convincing argument for the house of lords/monarchy that I've ever heard. Going to be thinking about this for a while, thanks.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - consp 7mo ago
    > a noble's interests are tied to the welfare of the country itself. I'd argue their interest is tied to the welfare of the country for themselves, not the country itself or the general public.
  - keybored 7mo ago
    The usual elitist slop. Every single citizen has a skin in the game of their country. They live there.
    - fc417fc802 7mo ago
      The comparison isn't to the average person off the street but rather the typical elected politician.
      - keybored 7mo ago
kbelder 7mo ago
How about a chamber populated by random lottery? Like jury duty?
- KK7NIL 7mo ago
  Perhaps you're joking, but Athenian democracy had a significant amount of randomness, with candidates being chosen randomly from the top vote winners. Terms were also only 1 year for most positions. These, and other systems, helped prevent any one person from monopolizing power. This is a good video on this: https://youtu.be/pIgMTsQXg3Q https://youtu.be/pIgMTsQXg3Q
  - kbelder 7mo ago
    Not joking, although maybe not terribly serious either. I could envision a random (filtered) selection of citizens being given a veto power over legislation, as another check against abuse.
    - inglor_cz 7mo ago
      We could start by something like a randomly appointed commission to investigate, say, very expensive public projects.
      - KK7NIL 7mo ago
        I like this idea, much better suited to a "jury duty" style approach.
    - rgblambda 7mo ago
      Not quite the same thing, but in Ireland, it's become more common for Citizens Assemblies, which are randomly selected (this is disputed by some) citizens appointed to help word referenda on constitutional amendments and otherwise gauge public feeling on certain issues. The assembly then passes it's recommendation to the Parliament who are free to ignore it if they don't like it.
    - deleted 7mo ago
rexpop 7mo ago
Extraordinary, and disgusting, to see monarchism touted by literate professionals in the 21st century. The "point" of hereditary peerage is, from the perspective of the nobility, to preserve privileges with only self-interested regard for the welfare of the public—which very obviously resolves into tyrannical despotism at the earliest opportunity! Utterly unconscionable to carry water for the literally medieval political economy that brought us, eg the calamitous 14th century. Countless—countless—examples of the hideous cruelties of hereditary nobles abound since the institution's inception. You'd have to be a blind pig to ignore the myriad failure states. My God, man, do you want your children to be slaves??

Chinjut 7mo ago

The Senate is, while not the whole story, a significant part of the reason the government constantly fails to do what is either the desire of the people or what's in their interests. I wouldn't lament losing the Senate.

jfengel 7mo ago
The US Senate is designed to check and balance the House of Representatives. But that often puts the Congress as a whole in deadlock, meaning it can no longer balance the other two branches. When they could get anything done they delegated a lot of power to the Executive. Which worked ok, but eventually a "unitary executive" appropriated even more power, and the Legislature is powerless to prevent it.
- pjc50 7mo ago
  Unpopular opinion: deadlock is fine. Most legislation is bad. What really matters is the budget. And the rule that failing to pass a budget can automatically force an election avoids the absurd US "shutdown" that isn't a shutdown.
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    This is now my second favorite idea, after a nationwide ban of first past the post voting schemes. My third (previously second) is outlawing political parties. The problem with that one is it would be really difficult to implement in a way that doesn't run afoul of freedom of association and freedom of speech. Probably worth figuring out though.
    - jfengel 7mo ago
      I don't think it can be figured out. Every democratic country has political parties.
      - fc417fc802 7mo ago
        True but I think much could be done to blunt their impact if we collectively put our minds to it.
    - inglor_cz 7mo ago
      People really love to create associations, and if "parties" are banned, "movements" or "clubs" that are "totally-not-parties" will take their place. We are too gregarious to prevent emergence of political groups. A parliament of cats would probably be more individualistic, but not that of humans.
    - rgblambda 7mo ago
      Voting system reform would probably mitigate the worst aspects of political parties. Egypt after ousting Mubarak held an election where a third of seats were reserved for independents. Most winning candidates were just Muslim Brotherhood affiliated. I suspect the military interim government did that deliberately to justify their later coup.
    - perilunar 7mo ago
      You don't need to outlaw parties, just remove any privileges and powers they have.
  - jfengel 7mo ago
    Deadlock would be fine if the other two branches weren't running amuck.
    - pjc50 7mo ago
      Not a problem in the UK system, although the PM has a lot of power he is very much removable if the party doesn't support it.
      - hunterpayne 7mo ago
        Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't members of the current PM's party publicly saying he needs to step down right now?
        pjc50 7mo ago
        Yes. They can say what they like, but until they can find 167 votes from Labour MPs to remove him, he stays. https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Commons https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Commons This is where the intra-party coalitions become important. Every party of significant size has them. Labour is effectively a coalition between a rightwing faction (New Labour/Blue Labour) and everyone else who is more leftwing. The internal and external debate is the question: should they focus "right" (immigrant and queerbashing, welfare cuts) to appease the right wing of the party and try to pick up Reform/Conservative voters, or focus "left" on their base and people who are switching to Green?
  - dralley 7mo ago
    On the other hand, voting needs to mean something. If voting doesn't mean anything, because the whole system is held in a vice grip by a sclerotic institution playing power games with itself, then the broader system eventually collapses. My personal opinion is that Mitch McConnell's intransigence and unwillingness to do anything lest Obama get credit for it led directly to an increased desire for a "strongman"
fc417fc802 7mo ago
Aren't you supporting parent's point? The senate is elected these days after all ...
- Chinjut 7mo ago
  The Senate gives a rather disproportionate democracy in which the votes of a small number in small states take on disproportionate significance compared to the votes of a large number in populous states.
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    That still does nothing to refute the parent's complaint about democracy. Lopsided representation is still representation (as opposed to a council of nobles or military generals or whoever). Also the thing you're objecting to is literally the entire point of the senate from day one. It was intended to give less populous states an equal voice in contrast to the house of representatives. Unfortunately history happened and the house of representatives hasn't been proportional for a long time. But if you're going to complain about something it should probably be the latter rather than the former.
crooked-v 7mo ago
The Senate was fundamentally from the start a compromise in favor of the slave-owning ogliarchy. You just have to look at free and slave states being admitted in pairs to preserve the status quo of slavery to see how that went.

tartoran 7mo ago

Why would a hereditary system work any better? Plenty of monarchies based on heredity ran themselves into the ground.

theodric 7mo ago
It provides an additional check. Much like a monarch, a noble's interests are tied to the welfare of the country itself. Without the country, they're just a toff with some money and an overinflated sense of self-importance.
- pkaodev 7mo ago
  This is the most convincing argument for the house of lords/monarchy that I've ever heard. Going to be thinking about this for a while, thanks.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- consp 7mo ago
  > a noble's interests are tied to the welfare of the country itself. I'd argue their interest is tied to the welfare of the country for themselves, not the country itself or the general public.
- keybored 7mo ago
  The usual elitist slop. Every single citizen has a skin in the game of their country. They live there.
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    The comparison isn't to the average person off the street but rather the typical elected politician.
    - keybored 7mo ago

kbelder 7mo ago

How about a chamber populated by random lottery? Like jury duty?

KK7NIL 7mo ago
Perhaps you're joking, but Athenian democracy had a significant amount of randomness, with candidates being chosen randomly from the top vote winners. Terms were also only 1 year for most positions. These, and other systems, helped prevent any one person from monopolizing power. This is a good video on this: https://youtu.be/pIgMTsQXg3Q https://youtu.be/pIgMTsQXg3Q
- kbelder 7mo ago
  Not joking, although maybe not terribly serious either. I could envision a random (filtered) selection of citizens being given a veto power over legislation, as another check against abuse.
  - inglor_cz 7mo ago
    We could start by something like a randomly appointed commission to investigate, say, very expensive public projects.
    - KK7NIL 7mo ago
      I like this idea, much better suited to a "jury duty" style approach.
  - rgblambda 7mo ago
    Not quite the same thing, but in Ireland, it's become more common for Citizens Assemblies, which are randomly selected (this is disputed by some) citizens appointed to help word referenda on constitutional amendments and otherwise gauge public feeling on certain issues. The assembly then passes it's recommendation to the Parliament who are free to ignore it if they don't like it.
  - deleted 7mo ago

rexpop 7mo ago

Extraordinary, and disgusting, to see monarchism touted by literate professionals in the 21st century. The "point" of hereditary peerage is, from the perspective of the nobility, to preserve privileges with only self-interested regard for the welfare of the public—which very obviously resolves into tyrannical despotism at the earliest opportunity! Utterly unconscionable to carry water for the literally medieval political economy that brought us, eg the calamitous 14th century. Countless—countless—examples of the hideous cruelties of hereditary nobles abound since the institution's inception. You'd have to be a blind pig to ignore the myriad failure states. My God, man, do you want your children to be slaves??