The implication of saying that you need the extra scrutiny is that either the Commons doesn’t reflect the will of the people; or that the will of the people is not what ultimately makes law. If the people elect idiots and get bad legislation, that is democracy for you.
Of course, FPTP more-or-less guarantees that the government has a majority in Parliament without having a majority of the vote.
Defenders of FPTP often say that one advantage is that it means that the government has a clear majority. If that were such a good thing, why would we need a second chamber to balance it?
You certainly won’t find me defending FPTP. I don’t even really consider it to be democracy. Instant Runoff Voting is really the bare minimum available system, IMO. (Ok, I would accept Approval Voting, which is much much better than FPTP but not as good as IRV, as democratic. But I’ve never seen it used in practice so it’s not especially relevant.)
My point was simple: even within the framework of supporters of the current Lords, it does a very bad job of delivering on its promises.
The implication of saying that you need the extra scrutiny is that either the Commons doesn’t reflect the will of the people; or that the will of the people is not what ultimately makes law.
The former is obviously a good case for voting reform. But the latter I think oversimplifies the issue somewhat. Aside from using a more democratic voting system, I don’t think anyone is calling for changes to how the Commons works. It’s always going to be the people’s elected representatives. And nothing can pass without being the will of the Commons. But that leaves the second house to be able to perform a different function. In a lot of countries, the Senate is supposed to represent the will of the states/provinces, rather than people directly. An equally valid option is to be essentially a panel without the need to worry about what’s popular (or at least with less need of that). It can help as a bulwark against populist policies. See the many examples given in this video of things the Lords tried (and ultimately failed) to stop.
Or I could point to the recent Australian social media minimum age law, which would absolutely have been stopped by any even vaguely apolitical chamber, not necessarily because the policy itself was bad, but because rushing it through in one week without adequate time for public submissions or inquiries is always bad policymaking.
The implication of saying that you need the extra scrutiny is that either the Commons doesn’t reflect the will of the people; or that the will of the people is not what ultimately makes law. If the people elect idiots and get bad legislation, that is democracy for you.
Of course, FPTP more-or-less guarantees that the government has a majority in Parliament without having a majority of the vote.
Defenders of FPTP often say that one advantage is that it means that the government has a clear majority. If that were such a good thing, why would we need a second chamber to balance it?
You certainly won’t find me defending FPTP. I don’t even really consider it to be democracy. Instant Runoff Voting is really the bare minimum available system, IMO. (Ok, I would accept Approval Voting, which is much much better than FPTP but not as good as IRV, as democratic. But I’ve never seen it used in practice so it’s not especially relevant.)
My point was simple: even within the framework of supporters of the current Lords, it does a very bad job of delivering on its promises.
The former is obviously a good case for voting reform. But the latter I think oversimplifies the issue somewhat. Aside from using a more democratic voting system, I don’t think anyone is calling for changes to how the Commons works. It’s always going to be the people’s elected representatives. And nothing can pass without being the will of the Commons. But that leaves the second house to be able to perform a different function. In a lot of countries, the Senate is supposed to represent the will of the states/provinces, rather than people directly. An equally valid option is to be essentially a panel without the need to worry about what’s popular (or at least with less need of that). It can help as a bulwark against populist policies. See the many examples given in this video of things the Lords tried (and ultimately failed) to stop.
Or I could point to the recent Australian social media minimum age law, which would absolutely have been stopped by any even vaguely apolitical chamber, not necessarily because the policy itself was bad, but because rushing it through in one week without adequate time for public submissions or inquiries is always bad policymaking.