Agreed. But how do you ever implement complete neutrality? How do we appoint judges for example?

If you want more individual democracy you'd need to have some form of swiss type referendum system.

The Senate: There are two senators elected to each state for a six-year term. The timing is such that one-third are elected every two years. This ensures continuity of experience of at least two-thirds of senators at any one time. The purpose of two votes per state is to enable each state to have equal representation, preventing more populous states from passing legislation that would always primarily benefit more populous states.

The House of Representatives: Representatives are elected for four year terms and the number allocated to each state is based on the population as determined by the census (conducted every ten years). This ensures proportional representation given that more populous states have different needs than smaller states. The number of representatives as people move in and out of states. The entire House is up for election every four years.

Congress:: The founding fathers established the bicameral Congress to prevent the tyranny of a runaway legislature. Legislation can be introduced in either the House of Representatives and the Senate, but must be passed by the other house and signed by the President for it to become law. There is an option for Congress to override a vetoed (refused) bill by the President, but that requires a two-thirds majority by all of Congress.

Hope this helps .

And health service.

Don't really understand how the US works.

One of the problems of having an elected second chamber is that presumably it would mirror the population of the commons in terms of proportion of representatives. In which case, what would it's purpose be if, in effect, it would be nodding through laws proposed by the government.

isn't working there and wouldn't work here either. Been discussed before on other threads.

Not necessarily.

I have suggested in the past that our second chamber - presently known as 'Lords' - could be elected by proportional representation.

Voters would not be voting for a local representative, as in the Commons, but for candidates standing nationally and standing as experts in various fields such as elements of business, science, health, etc, etc. They should still declare any alignment with political parties, but that need not have any bearing on who the electorate votes for. Ideally, though, they should be apolitical. Their number should not need to exceed 100. If the Yanks can manage with 100, so should we!

IS working VERY WELL in Switzerland and WOULD WORK very well here. The NHS is now CRAP. Not the front line hands on folk, mostly very committed and do as well as they can but as for the rest? AWFUL.

Agreed. But how do you ever implement complete neutrality? How do we appoint judges for example?

If you want more individual democracy you'd need to have some form of swiss type referendum system.

Not necessarily.

I have suggested in the past that our second chamber - presently known as 'Lords' - could be elected by proportional representation.

Voters would not be voting for a local representative, as in the Commons, but for candidates standing nationally and standing as experts in various fields such as elements of business, science, health, etc, etc. They should still declare any alignment with political parties, but that need not have any bearing on who the electorate votes for. Ideally, though, they should be apolitical. Their number should not need to exceed 100. If the Yanks can manage with 100, so should we!

Is this relevant to the thread?