While Britain lectures the world on democracy, others put it into practice.

I'm a British Student studying Politics. For those that don't know much about British politics, I hope you find this interesting. It concerns the lack of democracy we face in Britain.

The United Kingdom completed its General Election in May this year. The result - the re-election of a Labour government with a severely depleted majority - was probably a reasonable reflection of the people's will. How far it was either representational or democratic is another matter.

Labour won a solid overall majority, even though the party took only 36 per cent of the vote. With only 3 per cent less of the vote than Labour, the Conservatives won 159 fewer seats. The Liberal Democrats fared proportionately even worse. Thanks to peculiarities of our constituency boundaries, it took almost half as many votes again to elect a Tory MP as to elect one from Labour. And, despite boundary changes since the last election, Scotland and Wales were still able to elect proportionately more MPs than England. This is undemocratic!

In view of these and other anomalies of our 'First-Past-the-Post' system ( our current electoral system whereby victory is assured by means of simple plurality and a Government is formed by the party with the most MPs not votes!) it is perhaps little wonder that turnout has been falling in Britain, only 61% in May. This year's was the second lowest in 60 years. A majority of MPs were in safe seats and, of these, many were elected with less than 50 per cent of the vote. As always, Conservatives were effectively disenfranchised in much of Scotland and northern England, and Labour supporters across whole swathes of the south. Smaller parties got nowhere.

Closer examination of the voting figures shows, however, that although turnout in safe seats often fell below 50 per cent, wherever the result was in doubt, people did exercise their right to vote. The clear implication is that British voters have not given up on democracy; they take part when they consider that it works.

British people are losing faith in our democracy. There are many more ways in which are system is undemocratic. Our Queen, the Head of State, Leader of the Armed Forces and Queen of the Commonwealth is unelected. Our Prime Minister can choose whenever he wants to call an Election within five years- not like the US fixed four year term. There are still 92 Hereditary Lords in the Houses of Lords (unelected people who make serious decisions on our laws.)

So when Britian invaded Iraq with the noble quest of installing democracy, perhaps Blair should have looked a little closer to home.

I know little of American politics yet I doubt you guys face the problems that exist here in Britain

__________________
"Never has so much been owned, by so many, to so few."

This is the part I really have the most problems with. They have an entrenched power base that is not under the control of the masses. I am kind of suprised more Brits dont have a problem with this.

Liberals here like to complain about our politicians, but yeah, Britain sounds a lot worse though. None of our politicians hold hereditary positions...there is no politician that cannot be removed.

Here's the short version of the American system:

President is the supreme commander of all our military. He is elected by the electoral college, which in turn are supposed to vote according to the majority in whatever area they represent. They are not BOUND to do this by law however. These so-called "faithless electors" are few and far between. No faithless elector has ever changed the outcome of a Presidential election in US history. This is considered a big problem by a lot of people, but since electors have not abused their power very often, it has not really come up as an issue for most people. I think some states have laws that punish faithless electors, but their votes still stand regardless. Whoever gets the most electoral votes wins. The President cannot make any laws, but can VETO (nullify) any law made by congress. Congress in turn can override his VETO (I think by a 2/3 majority only).

Congress is made up of two houses - The House of representatives and the Senate. The senate is elected by each state (two senators per state). The House is elected by each state by population (so larger states are represented more than smaller states). Laws are proposed in the senate first (I believe). After they pass the senate they must then also pass the House. I admit I am not 100% sure on this...might be the other way around. Like the President, they have fixed terms (think is it 2-6 years). Unlike the President, they do not have term limits...they can run forever if they want. But elections are held at fixed times.

The Judicial branch is mixed; some judges are appointed by elected officials. Some are elected themselves. The Supreme Court is responsible for "interpreting" the Constitution. Sometimes this interpretation is (in the opinion of many) rather creative. But they ultimately get to decide what was intended by any given part of the Constitution. The Constitution overrides all other laws, no matter when they were made or by who. Any law that they decide conflicts with the Constitution is null and void, as if it never existed. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the sitting President, and then confirmed by congress (I forget what ratio is required, but I think it is a simple majority). There is no limit to how many can be appointed in any term; so if all the justices were to fall over dead tomorrow, Bush would get to pick all new ones. They have no term limit...they are there for life or until they choose to retire. There are mechanisms in place to allow Congress to remove supreme court justices, but they have never been put into practice as far as I know.

The Constitution can be changed (Amended) by a 3/4 Vote in congress (I think) and then must also be ratified by a referrendum in 3/4 of the States as well. My ratios may be off (might be 2/3 instead of 3/4), but that is the gist of how it works. An Amendment effectively changes the Constitution, although it technically does not erase anything.

I am sure there are a lot of details I glossed over, but that is the broad overview. I am familiar with the major aspects of the British system; Does the House of Lords typically vote in line with the will of the masses in your opinion?

Not much is made about the hereditary Lords because there are also elected lords, albeit by the Government, and because the House of Commons have much more power. The Lords are slowly taking on the role of the Queen, all they do is accept or decline bills from the House of Commons, but they rarely decline because they have cushy jobs and don't want to lose them. The last bill the Lords rejected was the ban on fox hunting. They kept refusing the bill and the commons had to keep changing it but eventually the Lords gave in, they only objected in the first place because most of them are from the upper class and go fox hunting themselves.

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison

I shall expand then. The House of Lords although its has been reformed and has lost many hereditary peers since Labour came to power still retains the Anglican Bishops (no other religion is represented in this way in Parliament) while there is a growing concern that the government's plans to appoint Life Peers to the Lords will simply ensure that it becomes flooded with "Tony's cronies" and that is hardly a way to fill a part of the legislature in a supposedly modern democracy. Blair and Labour targeted the H.O.L in 1997 realising that almost all Peers were Conservatives. It is subordinate to the Commons but nonetheless carries out key roles. It revises legislation and keeps a check on Government by scruntinising its Bills. As it is unelected it is unaccountable to the electrate. It is also the Supreme Court of Appeal, with the Law Lords being the most senior Judges yet they are appointed by the Government. If the Lords don't like a Bill they can reject it, though only twice. If the Government rejects the Lords amendment it too can reject them, with a 12 month delay. Therefore the Lords play a crucial role in our political system. The H.O.L defies any rule book on democratic and secular politics, an anomaly in British public life.

Thanks btw SS found that extremley useful.

__________________
"Never has so much been owned, by so many, to so few."

My impression was that the House of Lords and the House of Commons function like our Congress. Am I wrong?

That, in essence, the House of Lords, while they cant make new laws, can essentially Veto anything the House of Commons sends to them. Yes, they may not abuse the power for whatever reason, but what would stop them from doing so? What could the British masses do about it if they chose to use it?

Does Britain have the equivilant of a Constitution? In Spain the masses have control of the Constitution, which supercedes the king. So the monarchy has absolute authority except when it conflicts with the constitution...which is controlled by the masses. So while not technically a democracy in name, it is the same end result.

How is the judicial branch elected in Britain? By popular vote or by appointment from elected officials?

Yes our House of Lords and Commons and your Congress sound very similar though there are key differences. Only the House of Commons are elected. They are elected every 4-5 years by the electrate through a General Election. None of the Lords are elected by the people, they are either appointed by the ruling Government or are Hereditary Peers, as in a son will adopt their father's Peerage. That means that the Government could give a Peerage to whom ever they wanted- usually a person that supports their party, as Blair is doing now. We, the electrate, can do nothing to stop this. A new law- called a Bill- has first to be proposed in the House of Commons. The elected MPs theb have to vote on it, whether they agree or disagree with it. If it passes the Bill is sent onto the House of Lords. They then scruntinise it. They can send it back to the House of Commons with amendments but only twice. They cannont refuse it- if they try to (as happened with our recent Fox Hunting Ban) Government can use an Act of Parliament. This means that the House of Commons, the superior House, enforces the Bill regardless of what the House of Lords thinks.
Yes Britian has a Constitution but it is uncodified- ie not written down on one peice of paper. Our constitution exists in various sources: Statue Law, Common Law, convention, texts and the EU.
The Government has no control over the Judical Branch of Government, it remains complelety neutral and independent. The Government cannot appoint Juges to civilian cases but can call on them to chair important commissions or enquiries, such as the Butler Report ( the offical report into the British government's handling of the Iraq war.)

__________________
"Never has so much been owned, by so many, to so few."

Ok...so the House of lords cannot make new laws. They can only give a thumbs up or thumbs down to laws created by representatives. Thats not quite as bad then (though it is still pretty bad).

Ah...ok. THAT changes things. So essentially, the House of Lords cant override the House of Commons on anything. So your government effectively has only one house...the House of Lords is ornamental at best and has no real power. The House of Commons is the only determining factor in passing a bill into law in Britain.

Our congress does not work that way...Both the House of Representatives and the senate have very real power. A Bill must pass both (and survive a Presidential Veto) before it can become law.

Does the Prime Minister have veto power? Or does any Bill passed by the House of Commons simply become law?

Are they elected then? How does one become a judge?

That does change things. I did not know that the House of Lords could be overridden by the House of Commons. The House of Lords is hereditary, but all they can do is slow the process....they cant stop it. That is still democratic IMO. If the House of Commons was to strip them completely of power, what could they do to stop it? You have no real Constitution, so they could not run to the judicial branch for cover.

It is an imperfect and convoluted system, yes. But it still seems democratic to me. Ultimate power is in the hands of the British masses, not hereditary officials. Thats all that is really required for democracy IMO. If they wanted to change their system, they could. They have a choice.

So tell me this, if The House of Commons was to try to pass a law tomorrow that dissolved the House of Lords, what could the House of lords do to stop it?

The U.S. has similar problems to the British system regarding representation.

In Britain, as I understand it, the prime minister is chosen by the party that elects the most MPs. Since some MP races are close and some are not, the party with the most MPs is not necessarily the party that got the most votes.

Our president is the guy who gets the most electoral votes. Those electoral votes are assigned by state, and most states have a "winner take all" system where the guy who wins the state gets *all* the electoral votes for that state.

So you have what happened in 2000, where Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election.

Similarly, U.S. representatives run in individual districts, just like MPs. So one party may get the most overall votes, but have fewer representatives in Congress.

With the separation of powers, this causes fewer problems here than in Britain. But we have the same structural setup.

What it boils down to is a choice: should a Rep (or MP) represent a particular district, or simply reflect a party's national support? If the idea is to represent a geographical area, then the current system is fine. Of course, we then game the system by gerrymandering district boundaries, but....

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Precisely that is what I meant when I said they are like the Queen. The Queen, although officially head of state has no real power. Bills have to be confirmed by her but she cannot reject them. She is a relic from a bygone era, just like the Lords.
Effectively, nothing. The Government have been slowly getting rid of the Lords for years and eventually they will be discontinued, as will the Monarchy. If the Commons got rid of the Lords today, there would be a lot of huffing and puffing from the Lords, and Labour would lose many financial donations, and some members of the public might object but nothing can really be done. There may be a Law that prevents the Lords from being completely removed, but I am unaware of it if there is.

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison