Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 413 posts

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#251

Post by hunterpayne »

xp84 wrote: post #125
rvz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there unelected hereditary nobles somewhere in the US that is entitled to having a seat in congress and can vote against laws being passed? Nope. I don't think so, not even the length of the term is the same.

unelected hereditary nobles Let's break down what Senators are: > Unelected In most states a single party will always win statewide elections, so our Senators are what I'd call "marginally elected" since they only have to face a quiet low-turnout primary election and then they sail to an easy re-election. They're nearly always guaranteed to win their primaries as long as The Party supports them, and they'll do so as…

Just checking, but you do realize that this kind of unhinged, populist takes are exactly the kind of propaganda you use to destroy a democratic system. You know that right?

Only a couple of states are like you describe and none of them are red. The governor of KY (the reddest state) for example is a Dem. One of the Senators for Montana is a Dem, etc. In fact, if you want the Dems to win the presidency in 2028, one of those folks is your best bet. The other thing we can do it get rid of gerrymandering but that's unlikely and the most recent gerrymandering attempts are likely to end up blowing up in the face of the party drawing the lines. Politics is nothing if not ironic.

PS Look at who is running for governor of CA right now and ask yourself if any of those folks actually represents CA in any real way. Also, ask yourself why there is only 1 Dem in that race?

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#252

Post by Dig1t »

kennywinker wrote: post #107
kiba wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really help the United States create good law. You could argue that it worsen the quality of laws by forcing kludges to be built on top of kludges. A sortition panel collecting random people from all walks of life to give feedback on law would probably improve the quality of law more than any amount of procedure and paperwork ever will. We mistaken paperwork with deliberation and quality control.

I’d go further. To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. Now trump is using executive orders even MORE expansively, to do things that are patently undemocratic and unconstitutional (federalizing who can vote, ilegal tariffs). The kludges and hacks are causing a crumbling of democracy, not just mediocre law.

>federalizing who can vote

Almost every single democracy in the world requires proof that you are eligible to vote. 80% of Americans agree with the idea as well.

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2026/02/voter-id-americans-suppor...

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#253

Post by hunterpayne »

cm2187 wrote: post #130
tehjoker wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50% + 1 is called democracy. Civil liberties are more liable to be swept away by minorities that come to power. In the US, the republicans often do this because they have minority popular support but a disproportionate representation in government. So the key is to make sure that it's 50% + 1 but also representative of the real population. The nobility is another example of a minority with disproportionate power. It'…

All other democracies have safeguards against the tyranny of the majority. Whether it is representativity by state in the US or in the EU, a constitution requiring a large consensus to change in the US, or the senate being elected by the elected officials of small cities in France, it is not true that democracy is just 50% + 1 vote.

What you describe is called a Republic. Pure democracy is precisely 50% + 1 vote.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#254

Post by hunterpayne »

InvertedRhodium wrote: post #239
JCattheATM wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many of those appointed to Life Peerages meet the goal of having significant life experience This is a poor justification for what still amounts to an unelected ruling class.

Honestly, I look around the world and don’t see much, if any, practical difference. The US has had two presidents that were direct relatives, I can’t believe that’s by pure chance or some kind of genetic skill at being president.

If you don't see any difference between people who won US presidential elections and those appointed for political favoritism, then I don't know what to tell you. Also, if you look at the current state of the UK vs US and don't see any difference then you need to get out more.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#255

Post by vkou »

anon291 wrote: post #220
vkou wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get something far worse in the US. Which is a government that no longer feels any need to either pass or be bound by laws.

Ah yes, the country whose supreme court struck down its global tariffs and then forced the federal government into refunding all the money back is truly no longer bound by its own laws.

Did the government pass any laws to steal those 130 billion dollars from Americans? I can't recall that it did.

Are there any consequences for the people who did it?

The government has long ceased to govern by law. It now governs from the bench, and from executive order, because laws are too troublesome to actually pass.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#256

Post by fleroviumna »

mindwok wrote: post #20

British democracy and government is cool. It's not enshrined in some document they got together and wrote down like the US constitution, it's this organic thing that they've stumbled towards over the last ~800 years with small changes like this one gradually evolving them into a modern liberal democracy.

[dead]

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#258

Post by [deleted] »

mindwok wrote: post #20

British democracy and government is cool. It's not enshrined in some document they got together and wrote down like the US constitution, it's this organic thing that they've stumbled towards over the last ~800 years with small changes like this one gradually evolving them into a modern liberal democracy.

[deleted]

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#259

Post by theshrike79 »

telesilla wrote: post #248
fy20 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these nobles have lost their inherent power The nobles were the land owners, the business owners, the OG entrepreneurs, they were educated, and their children would grow up to be the same. Historically the system made sense. But the last 150 years or so have basically taken their power away. A couple of years ago an estate - that included a 9 bedroom country house, plus an entire village with a population of 100 pe…

Because 150 years ago the labour to keep the estate running was very cheap. Now that labour is expensive, it costs more in maintenance than the property is worth, unless it's highly productive land. Reminds me of the joke, how to make a thousand dollars: buy a million dollar boat.

Downton Abbey played on this, they had to let people film a movie in their home just so that they could afford to fix the leaky roof =)

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#260

Post by ZeroGravitas »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #244
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that the US constitution was written before people realized that the natural consequence of that type of constitution is a two party system. The two party system is a consequence of using first past the post voting, which the US constitution doesn't even require. Use score voting instead, which can be done by ordinary legislation without any constitutional amendment, and you don't have a two party sy…

Are we reading the same constitution? Article II, Section 1 > The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President

I'll tell Hillary Clinton, she'll be thrilled.
Post reply on HN