Why's my absentee ballot blank?

[Wezil]

...if you are in a district where the race is expected to be close, you can expect the scrutineers (candidate's reps) to challenge unclear names, as I previously pointed out.

After the latest SCC decision, this statement doesn't fill me with confidence.

[Kidlicious]

No doubt, liberals have sloppy hand writing.

[Hauldren Collider]

While it sounds absurd, in practice it works surprisingly well. You have a set of people who are beholden to no party, generally feel an honest sense of duty to country and who tend to be very long term thinking.

I don't see why any of that follows from a hereditary right to power.

[snoopy369]

I don't see why any of that follows from a hereditary right to power.

Then you're not trying very hard, HC. There are plenty of arguments against hereditary power, of course, but there are some for it as well.

The long term thinking is the most obvious, and frankly evidence you're not even thinking about this to say what you did. A person who knows he will continue to have power no matter what, and will continue to have said power through his children and their children, will make decisions that favor the long term over the short term in general. A person who needs to be re-elected in a few years will make decisions that favor the short term in general. Certainly this isn't 100% true for everyone - but having that assurance of power means you can think longer term, and don't have to make decisions that are tailored around keeping power.

Beholden to no party is similar - they don't have to face re-election, so they are not required to follow their party line. Party lines tend to be extreme, and require moderate people to pretend extremism - and to actually support it, in general - if they want to be elected. Romney, McCain, etc. - all moderates at one time who have to at least pretend to extremism to be selected in their primary.

I'm not so sure about the 'honest sense of duty to country', but it's certainly part of the marketing packet for the nobility I think, though, this might be more of an argument by negation. When you are running for re-election and so on, you have more of a 'duty' to the people who get you re-elected - whether that is the party loyalists who make sure you have a seat to run from, or the interest groups who fund your advertising. Losing that means you don't have a duty to these special groups, which leaves more room for people who do have a sense of duty to country. Those who normally have that sense of duty might not fare well in elections as a result of their lack of ability to fund-raise.

[kentonio]

Yeah basically exactly that. Hereditary governance (even at the upper chamber level) is difficult to argue in favour of, but it does bring with it some benefits over an elected system. The irony for me is that we seem to be replacing it largely with an appointment system which REALLY pisses me off.

[Hauldren Collider]

What's wrong with appointment? I actually like the idea of an appointed body of experts.

[kentonio]

How exactly is an appointed upper chamber any improvement over a hereditary one? Who makes the appointments exactly?

[rah]

I don't know. Traditionally hereditary rule usually resulted in those in charge only being beholden to their own interests. Others interests were only considered when it might impact personal interest.

[snoopy369]

What's wrong with appointment? I actually like the idea of an appointed body of experts.

Appointment has to be the worst of all worlds for a governing body. Then you ended up with appointed officials who have personal agendas AND vulnerable to electoral pandering. Why not just appoint the RIAA, Monsanto, etc. directly for heaven's sake?

And why do you say 'experts'? Why do you think they'd be particularly expert at anything? Do you think the appointed folks now are generally the most 'expert' at their field? Heck no, they're the most willing to contribute to electoral funds and/or support politically.

[snoopy369]

I don't know. Traditionally hereditary rule usually resulted in those in charge only being beholden to their own interests. Others interests were only considered when it might impact personal interest.

And this is different from democracy how?

[kentonio]

I don't know. Traditionally hereditary rule usually resulted in those in charge only being beholden to their own interests. Others interests were only considered when it might impact personal interest.

I'm sure its an issue with some of them, but we seemed to have a large number of elderly peers who just seemed to live on the family estate and turn up at the House of Lords most days. Never really got any impression they were trying to manipulate laws for their own benefits.

[MrFun]

Going back for a second - people are surprised that Alby is one of the biggest partisans on this site?

not anymore

[rah]

I didn't say it was different. I just don't think not being beholden automatically infers noble intent.

[C0ckney]

I'm sure its an issue with some of them, but we seemed to have a large number of elderly peers who just seemed to live on the family estate and turn up at the House of Lords most days. Never really got any impression they were trying to manipulate laws for their own benefits.

one of the reasons that the last major reform took place (in 1999) was because of the issue of 'tory backwoodsmen'. lords who rarely went to the house, but could be called out to block any measures that the tory party didn't want to pass. before the reforms there was an inbuilt conservative majority in the lords. now the house is much more balanced, no one party has a majority and so a consensus has to be reached before legislation is passed. i think that this enhances its role as a revising chamber.

[kentonio]

Possibly, although I don't think it really hurts anything having the second chamber quite conservative as long as they can't actually block legislation.