The big one, for me, is that a second house elected in a completely differently way offers a way of mitigating 'Majoritarianism' - the dictatorship of a fifty-percent-plus one majority and the near-total exclusion of the interests of small minorities and regions with unusual needs.
It doesn't take long for the exclusion-from-decisions of a small and unpopular minority to become oppression.
A second chamber might, of course, replicate the majoritarian oppression: but differing internal mechanisms, that distinguish the two chambers, might mean that one of them is more collegiate and better able to give a voice to minority groups in coalition politics.
Also: I would say that the 'revising chamber' function of the Lords could, in theory, be replicated in the Commons: but it hasn't been, yet, and the Lords have a lot to do.
Best not remove that before we've fully replaced that.
In the Netherlands, we vote directly on candidates for the 'Second Chamber', which is equivalent to the House of Commons. We don't have districts or such for that. The Second Chamber is where laws are drafted, similar to the UK. We also have the 'Provincial States', who decide on things regarding the provinces. (Small as we are, we have twelve provinces.) These representatives are also directly chosen, but because the issues are much more local, there are also parties participating that are independent of the national parties -- but the national parties also participate, of course. I think the terms for both Provincial States and the Second Chamber are four years, but they are offset by two years. Some time after being sworn in, the members of the Provincial States elect the members of the 'First Chamber'. The First Chamber has to approve of all the laws the Second Chamber wants to make and tends to be filled with senior politicians. Sometimes, this results in very good compromises, because the government, while it does have a majority in the Second Chamber, does not necessarily have a majority in the First Chamber. The First Chamber is often more detached from day-to-day party poltics and more focused on things like internatinal law and the constitution. They don't often put up resistance, but when they do, it's often about fundamental issues and not some wishy-washy party politics.
Both chambers are democratically chosen (the Second Chamber directly, the First with one step in between), and the two-year offset allows the voters to put the breaks on either of these if needed. I guess it works for us.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2022-11-20 12:00 pm
no subject
It doesn't take long for the exclusion-from-decisions of a small and unpopular minority to become oppression.
A second chamber might, of course, replicate the majoritarian oppression: but differing internal mechanisms, that distinguish the two chambers, might mean that one of them is more collegiate and better able to give a voice to minority groups in coalition politics.
Also:
I would say that the 'revising chamber' function of the Lords could, in theory, be replicated in the Commons: but it hasn't been, yet, and the Lords have a lot to do.
Best not remove that before we've fully replaced that.
no subject
We also have the 'Provincial States', who decide on things regarding the provinces. (Small as we are, we have twelve provinces.) These representatives are also directly chosen, but because the issues are much more local, there are also parties participating that are independent of the national parties -- but the national parties also participate, of course. I think the terms for both Provincial States and the Second Chamber are four years, but they are offset by two years.
Some time after being sworn in, the members of the Provincial States elect the members of the 'First Chamber'. The First Chamber has to approve of all the laws the Second Chamber wants to make and tends to be filled with senior politicians. Sometimes, this results in very good compromises, because the government, while it does have a majority in the Second Chamber, does not necessarily have a majority in the First Chamber. The First Chamber is often more detached from day-to-day party poltics and more focused on things like internatinal law and the constitution. They don't often put up resistance, but when they do, it's often about fundamental issues and not some wishy-washy party politics.
Both chambers are democratically chosen (the Second Chamber directly, the First with one step in between), and the two-year offset allows the voters to put the breaks on either of these if needed.
I guess it works for us.