The Instigator
KernGordon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Subutai
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Should the house of lords be elected

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Subutai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,023 times Debate No: 35289
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

KernGordon

Con

Just challenge me
Subutai

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
KernGordon

Con

The house of Lords shouldn't be elected because the public might just choose a friend to run for Lord and vote for them because of favouritism.
Bribes People would do anything for money and people would do anything to win almost every time a judge could be bribed to side with them and who says they wont as well.
Mistakes people might be tricked into thinking that what they're saying is what they want but there's always the small print like if they say that if they vote for them he/she would give more benefit for people who need it but what they don't say is for that to happen they would have to raise taxes for people on benefits.
Plus I believe the prime minister should know what is best for the country.
And what you might say is that the public chooses the prime minister who chooses the lords but not all the time does the public make good choices in which Prime minister they choose hence why the public protests for rights this and rights that and if the public can't always be trusted to pick a good Leader then they can't fully be trusted to pick Lords.
And also some might not even give three f*cks about Voting so we might even have to bring compulsory voting because of how serious the house of Lords are and no one wants to get fined "50.00 because they didn't vote.
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank KernGordon for presenting his arguments.

Advantages to democratizing the House of Lords include:

Legitimacy: There can be no doubt about the democratic mandate of a freely elected body.
Status of members: Membership of the second chamber would be seen as a job with specific and important duties attached.
Representation: All parts of the country and all shades of political opinion could be represented.
Age: An elected House is likely to have more younger people in it than a nominated one.
Entrenched bicameralism: It is an unequivocal sign the Government was committed to a bicameral legislature.[1][2]

The main problem with keeping the House of Lords hereditary is that Britain's democratic system of government is more aristocratic. More people will be given the opportunity to stand for Parliament giving a greater range of representation, as the second house would be more representative of the lower classes outside the M25 instead of just to those in that group. Therefore, the people of Britain would be better represented, as is the fundumental idea behind a representative democracy.[3][4]

In the words of Katie Ghose, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, "If you hold the power to help decide how Britain is run you should be elected by us, the British public. That's democracy. No-one should be able to inherit or buy a place in the British Parliament."[5][6]

I will get to rebuttals in round 3.

Sources

[1]: Modernising Parliament, Reforming the House of Lords, HMSO, December 1998.
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]: http://www.parliament.uk...
[4]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[5]: http://www.independent.co.uk...
[6]: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
KernGordon

Con

Democracy is Admittedly the most efficient way of choosing a leader, but The Prime Minister thinks to put in the house of lords very meticulously and chooses them knowing that they will help depending in what sector they're good at.
And I believe that Hereditary peers shouldn't be, unless they have some sort of experience in doing something that can make A change.
As I said before the public can't always be trusted to make the right choice so to trust them with electing the Lords
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank KernGordon for this debate.

My opponent's main argument revolves around the idea that making the house of lords fully elected would damage the political process as he argues that most voters would not vote responsibly. However true this statement may be, it is important to remember who holds the real power in the British Legislature - the House of Commons. Basically, all the House of Lords does is scrutinize bills passed by the House of Commons, and on occasion, amends them. They, by no means, have any significant power.[1][2][3]

Basically, there shouldn't be a group of people making decisions for people who have not elected them, and therefore do not represent their interests. "Nothing could be less representative than the current London-centric incumbents. A wholly or mainly elected chamber is bound to be more reflective of Britain today."[4][5]

My opponent admits: "Democracy is Admittedly the most efficient way of choosing a leader..." Then he should be interested to know that 69 per cent of the population support an elected House of Lords. If he thinks democracy is good, then he should support electoral reform.[5]

Overall, for a more representative democracy to be established, the House of Lords needs to be elected by the people, and not appointed or given hereditary birthright.

Sources

[1]: http://www.parliament.uk...
[2]: http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...
[5]: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...;
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
KernGordonSubutaiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This was quite an easy win for Pro, as Con didn't really stick to what I perceived to be the point of the resolution. Conduct was equal. S/G was broadly equal, however Pro's arguments were better formatted and thus easier to read, so I'm giving S/G to Pro - Con's speeches were confusing in parts simply due to lacking spaces or proper labelling. Arguments to Pro: most of Con's arguments were against the idea of democracy itself (and, in any case, contained no end of factual errors about the British political system), and these arguments were easily brushed aside by Pro regardless. Pro made a decent case for why these reforms would be a better execution of democracy, while Con tried to make a (bad) case for the problems with democracy, which was something of a tangent which Pro combatted well anyway. Pro was the only side to use sources, although one of them WAS Wikipedia...
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
KernGordonSubutaiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy win for Pro. Con had no sources and his arguments were easily refuted.