h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Forgive my freedom, but I think the article could do with a tad more insight. For example, is the party "whip" system somewhat undemocratic? In a "first past the post" system, one party is able to force even unpopular and damaging legislation through, a problem which the party whip exacerbates.

Does the "first past the post" system also result in an overy-adversarial parliament? After all, here we have two parties, one in "opposition" (already being defined in adversarial terms), facing each other across the house.

Is it a good system, if a party that only gets 25% of the electorate voting for it forms a government with a massive majority? After all, 75% of the electorate did not vote for that party.

Why is it that in times of war, coalition governments are formed? If it is because it is better to have all politicians pulling together in the country's interest, why is it not better that they do that in times of peace? It seems to me it is almost an admission that the system as it stands does not work in the interests of the nation. And so on.

Regards,

Tony

In times of war party politics become irrelevant as the whole nation is fighting for survival as in the last case of a National Government during World War II. However the two main parties through the 20th Century have been such strong advocates of the so called '2 party system' they ignore the fact that there are currently 10 different parties represented in parliment, although only 9 take their seats. Before the last election this figure was 11.

I wasn't really trying to write critically about the system, but was attempting to describe it, and let the readers make up their own minds. The system has its drawbacks, but everyone has their own opinion on the subject.

Also many of the faults are not unique to Britain, but are problems with respresentative democracy. For example, I gather that the two party system is common to many countries with the first past the post system. Commentary on this could form part of a critisism of different forms of voting.

With the whips situation, I would rather let any readers make up their own mind, but point out that this can mean that this can allow a government to force through legislation, as I have done.

Some of the comments could be part of another entry, forming a critisism of the system. A comment on the first past the post system could be included in an entry debating the pro's and con's of different voting systems.

Well, you're begging the question

how to reform, as reform has been deemed (correctly) necessary?

why not make the Lord's entirely elected, on a proportional representation basis? Retaining the same powers, can only delay rather than stymie efforts of first-past-the-post commons.

Unelected peers are and were indefensible, unelected placemen should have no place in a democracy.

So how would a totally elected House of Lords be any different from just moore MPs?

So how would a totally elected House of Lords be any different from just more MPs?

So how would a totally elected House of Lords be any different from just more MPs?