Democratic Reform: Silly Games

"Tory opponents of House of Lords reforms are playing 'silly games' that could threaten the coalition [minister warns]" writes Nicholas Watt in The Guardian.
Some Conservative Party MPs are opposed to Coalition plans to reform the House of Lords, making it 80% elected. They are worried that elected Lords will challenge the primacy of The Commons, potentially lose the vast experience of today's appointed Lords and reinforce Lib-Dem power, but their views may be quashed by a three-line-whip and their coalition agreement.
"Nick Clegg's outgoing strategy director warned that the Liberal Democrats would block Tory plans to reduce the size of the House of Commons if David Cameron fails to persuade his MPs to support the measure." (Redefining the electoral boundaries was mooted as equalising the number of voters in each constituency as well as reducing the number of MPs, making each vote more equal to each other.)
So here we have the workings of democracy: coalition horse trading, whipping party members into line against their judgement and reinforcing party power by manipulating the way that elections work. Where are the electorate in this process? Were these things wanted by the majority? Do politicians represent their constituents or their party? Do they vote in line with their convictions or their career prospects? All problems famously defined by Edmund Burke in 1774.
Interactive Democracy is very different. It would allow us all to propose, debate and vote on each issue as we see fit. And, by dint of web based voting, it would facilitate other voting options such as automatically morphing electoral boundaries to make each vote equal or approval voting for "Lords" from different electoral regions, each presenting their CV on the voting site.

Lords Reform

Parliament has been debating the Lords Reform Bill which proposes an 80% elected House of Lords. One point that has been deliberated is the role of the Lords as a revising chamber, tapping into the long experience of its members to scrutinise Bills proposed by Parliament, which is typically composed of younger Members, some of whom may have just won their seats.
If there is a need for a second chamber my suggestion would be that 100% of its members be elected. Elections should be held perhaps a year or two after the general election. Using an online system people could approve or dismiss any number of Lords, with those most highly rated gaining a seat. Each candidate could provide a summary of their views and a categorised CV of their experience. The system could be searchable for certain phrases, for example Conservative, environmentalist, doctor, business man. (This is another example of how Web based Democracy could allow a novel and cost effective way of voting; others may have better ideas of how to use it.)
To limit the number of Lords each Citizen had to pass judgment on the total could be divided up and allocated to geographical areas of equal population size, but different to MP's constituencies so that a "Lord" couldn't claim a stronger mandate than an MP and usurp his authority: Parliament would therefore remain the premier house.
That's not to say that I particularly approve of the House of Lords. Abolishing it would save about £60m a year that I believe would be better spent on Interactive Democracy. I suspect ID would also help to ensure good quality MPs by making them more accountable, and it would provide the facility for people to devolve their votes to ex-MPs, thereby maintaining the involvement of the most experienced politicians. (Devolving your vote means that instead of voting on each issue your self you pass your vote to another MP or ex-MP for them to use as they see fit.)
More from The Guardian here.