how does Hereditary Peerage fit into Democracy?

Question

i simply dont understand how Hereditary Peerage fits Democracy. how can a rational country with sensible people put up with a group of people who are of questionable background, never voted in, impossible to vote out and their hands surgerically attahced to gin glasses, think they have anything to do with Democracy? how does this fit into today's world? what has England been thinking?

take all the time you need to answer this question. i taught in the unviserity for years and it simply baffles me.

because Hereditary Peerage is a tradition, does it make it Democratic (England)?

England was formed in 1066. if Tony Blair is still struggling with H/P (Hereditary Peerage) in 2006, it seems to me that Democracy is in the w/c but someone needs to pull the chain (flush).

my question is (still): how does H/P relate to Democracy?

(tradition or not) it does not play any role in [real] Democracy.

Answer 1

It depends on the country.

For example, under the US Constitution, hereditary titles or offices are not allowed.

But under a different system, it's not incompatible. The original model of the US constitution (Article I Section 4) had Senators elected by the state legislatures, not the voters. That meant the senators had the state governments as their constituents, while the House had the local population as their constituents.

Under that model, it's completely valid to have hereditary peers forming one chamber of a representative government, with another chamber (House of Commons) made up of those elected by the populace. The peers represent the interests of the regions that they are the nobles of, and the Commons represents the general population.

I'm not familiar enough with England's actual government to know if that's how it works in practice. But that's the theory.

Answer 2

I don't think hereditary peerage does promote the concept
of pure democracy.

You didn't talk about the biggest example of hereditary
peerage: The royalty (in the UK, Her Majesty Elizabeth II).

It does, however, promote the concept of continuity. Indeed the
US founders understood the importance of country continuity
with senators having longer terms and the Justice terms being
for life. They understood that perfect democracy was chaotic.

Indeed, so chaotic that it can well fly apart of its own attempts
to govern itself.

We currently have the technology to literally have
one-person-one-vote (using Internet, etc), but who is going
to have the time to get informed about and decide every issue?
We have already stepped away from the chaos of pure
democracy with representation.

Peerage, a non-elected judicial system and a Constitution
that requires considerably more than 50% will to change
are all attempts to add continuity to a government.

Answer 3

You are so right. They just make more and more tools to undermine our democracy. This was put in to place by the Dems after the will of the people resulted McGovern winning the nomination in 1972. Democratic cronies made sure that that wouldn't happen again. "Rationale For Super-Delegates The Democratic Party established this system in part in response to the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. McGovern took only one state and had only 37.5 percent of the popular vote. Then in 1976, Jimmy Carter was a dark-horse candidate with little national experience. The purpose of the super-delegate system is to act as a check on ideologically extreme or inexperienced candidates. It also gives power to people who have a vested interested in party policies: elected leaders. Because the primary and caucus voters do not have to be active members of the party (in New Hampshire they can sign up and sign out going-and-coming at the polls), the super-delegate system has been called a safety-value."

Answer 4

The Supreme Court of the United States is appointed by the President and the Senate. There are times when it is considered better to appoint someone who has the appropriate skills rather than allow popular concensus decide. The degree of voter involvement varies from nation to nation but at the heart of all democracies, a crucial body of government is freely elected.

The fact that the United States has the highest degree of voter involvement does not mean that they are "more democratic" than other states; merely that they involve the people in more aspects of the system. It is up to a nation and a people to decide who can be elected and who needs to be appointed.

Answer 5

Just look at the Department of Homeland Security and Bush's "Center for Faith Based Initiatives" which is part of that. We'll just assume that Michael Chertof is the Duke of Homeland Security.
Is this an example of Hereditary Peerage you are referring to?
If so, I don't think it has much to do with Democracy, just giving away the farm to the politicians and their childrens children who can collect for years for their service to America.

Answer 6

I thought that was why Blair and new labor was tryign to eliminate the hereditary peers from the house of lords and replace them with Life Peers.

The UK has their traditions and had somehow manged to make it work.

Answer 7

It's tradition. Hundreds of years of tradition will not be dismatled overnight is it causes no harm.

Answer 8

Democracy is for the plebiscites.