• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    What if the new elected upper house worked similarly to the Australian Senate? Our House of Representatives is the same as your House of Commons (except that it uses IRV instead of the undemocratic FPTP) with single-winner districts. But the Senate uses a proportional system (STV) electing 6 Senators per state for twice the amount of time an MP is elected for. So they’re relatively less concerned about the day-to-day shifting polls than MPs are, and you get a result that’s much more representative of what the people actually want.

    In the UK context, it might be easier to sell PR in an entirely new house than it would be to update how the Commons is elected.

    • wewbull
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      That voting scheme is what I’d like to see the commons be, but I see where you’re coming from with the idea of using a second house to bring the concept in.

      On terms, I actually like the perpetual appointment aspect of the lord’s, but I do think it should have a retirement age, say 75. I think that’s one of the reasons I’m against making it an elected house because I don’t see how you make the two work together.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Personally I like the idea of a second house that is able to act as the house of review, thanks to its members having longer terms than the lower house. That’s a quality we have in Australia federally, but not in my home state of Queensland which is unicameral. It’s also something New Zealand lacks with its unicameral legislature (elected via MMP).