There is one main advantage. Namely, having an entirely elected House of Lords would give it increased legitimacy. In a democracy such as ours the theory is that parliament and the government of the day should represent the views of the electorate. Being a second chamber of parliament whom interacts with and potentially influences legislation, most feel that an appointed upper House is undemocratic and thus the legitimacy of the Lords is continually being questioned. In March 2007, each House voted on a range of proportions for elected members they would like to see in a reformed House of Lords. The Lords voted for a wholly appointed second chamber while the Commons voted primarily for a wholly elected chamber. (And for one that was 80% elected.) This result was the basis for the continuation of cross party talks led by Jack Straw. (The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice) These talks then resulted in the publishing of a White Paper on possible reforms for the Lords. The basis of this paper was that since the Commons is the primary chamber in parliament, it is the views of this House that should be followed. In my mind, this contextualises the general questioning of the legitimacy of the Lords. The question of course is whether this advantage is significant enough to override the disadvantages of having a wholly elected second chamber.
There are two key disadvantages here. Firstly, a wholly elected second chamber is likely not to be able to perform the role as well as the current one does. As mentioned earlier, the main functions of the Lords are scrutiny of legislation and debating or causing debate on issues of public concern. In many other countries which do have a fully elected second chamber of parliament, there is often yet another body which is empowered to perform acts in a similar manner to our House of Lords. For instance, the American Supreme Court can strike down legislation that is incompatible with their constitution. The idea here is that elected legislators might not have sufficient expertise or even a sufficient range or views represented to perform their duties to a high standard. Many distinguished members of the Lords who are currently present do not have particularly strong party affiliations and would probably not stand for election on a party ticket. They are further unlikely to stand for election as an independent as the odds would be stacked against them. In fact, the people who are likely to do so would basically be politicians. Worse so, out of the politicians with strong party alignments it is likely that the ‘better’ ones would already be in the Commons. All these factors would combine to lead to a reduction in the general standard of debate and scrutiny of legislation in the Lords.
The first disadvantage discussed then leads on to the second one. The role of an all elected second chamber is likely to be quite confused and potentially highly ineffective bordering even on pointlessness specifically with relation to its current functions. Being all elected and as mentioned above, largely from a political background, this ‘new’ House is more likely to succumb to party pressures. The current system works because of the significant difference in composition of the two houses. The second chamber basically provides a system of checks and balances for the first chamber. When you reach a stage where the second chamber is similar to the first chamber, the ability to perform this function is much hampered. Indeed it would be akin to say a student invigilating an examination for his peers. Furthermore, if elected on a system of proportional representation, the Lords may even start to question the supremacy of the Commons. They would have a fair case in arguing that it is they who are more representative of the electorate rather than a group elected on the first past the post system. Though the White paper feels a more assertive house might be more constructive, I feel it may lead to a worsening of relations between the two which might even be destructive. All this in turn may even call for the creation of yet another body to perform the role of the existing Lords which would be a waste of resources to say the least. All in all the gravity of these 2 disadvantages is such that it should rule out the possibility of a wholly elected second chamber.
If however, the Lords (or some part of it) were to be elected, it should be done by a proportional representation system. Based on the2008 white paper, it seems at the moment the government is considering three types of voting systems for elections to the Lords. These are namely a plurality system, a majority system, and a proportional-based system. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. The plurality system suggested is the first past the post system currently in use for elections to the Commons. It would probably ensure that the representation in the lower house would be similar to that in the upper house. This however is a bad thing for the second chamber. Furthermore, such a system would give little chance to independents as each voter would merely have one vote and are likely to feel pressured to vote for a candidate associated with a party as they’d be more likely to win. The majority system suggested is the alternate vote system. This allows for all candidates to be ranked in order of preference. In general, I feel it is preferable to the plurality system as essentially, the winning candidate would have to receive more than 50% of the votes (albeit after votes are redistributed). It also gives a better chance to independent candidates who may win by virtue of being the second preference for many. (Assuming there’s a large split on first preferences). A proportional representation system however would provide the most opportunity for independents and candidates who are not from the 2 main parties. This in turn is likely to produce a balanced second chamber which is as un-party polarised as possible. This is clearly desired in the second chamber and thus should be adopted.
Essentially, the Lords should not be entirely elected. That would undermine both the quality of the members in the house and the work done by the house as well. It would also then raise questions about whether yet another system of checks and balances was needed to ensure that parliament functioned in the best interests of the country. That being said however if it were hypothetically to be wholly (or partly) elected, elections should be held using a proportional representation system.
Turpin and Tomkins, British Government and the Constitution (2007), page 643
Oliver and Jowell, The Changing Constitution (2007), chapter 7, page 179
An elected Second Chamber, Ministry of Justice, 14 Jul 2008, Implied in 4.13
Ibid, Chapter 4 for details of all voting systems mentioned