# FILE NAME: 00002234.soc
# TITLE: Should we continue to have an unelected House of Lords? [bce1b7873cb20b08daf1577814645201]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No we should not. This is fundamentally undemocratic. Even if the peers that are appointed are honest and are a good representation of the country, the fact that an election process is not used to vote them in means that the political system is a lopsided and not accurately reflecting of the people and their interests. In fact, because unelected members have no democratic mandate, they tend to be biased towards the interests of the party which appointed them and they are often rewarded for this with positions and a voice in parliament. This also means that the government (and therefore Prime Minister and their Cabinet) retains too much power for the people's liking and the checks and balances required for a functioning democracy are very much lacking. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No. This is fundamentally undemocratic and outdated. If they are to speak for us and have our best interests in mind, they should be elected into their position. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people. Members of the House of Lords have high salaries, but no real democratic mandate. We don't live in the real world, or an uncultured lives, we just care about the people.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No we should not. It is fundamentally undemocratic and outdated to have unelected members of the House of Lords. If they are to speak for us and have our best interests in mind, they should be elected into their position. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people. The House of Lords is not fit for purpose in the 21st century and should be abolished.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No we should not. It is fundamentally undemocratic and outdated to have unelected members of the House of Lords. If they are to speak for us and have our best interests in mind, they should be elected into their position. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people. In addition, it is important to note that the unelected second chamber is unable to truly act as an equal to the house of commons, without having a democratic mandate. This means the system is lopsided and lacking in checks and balances required for a functioning democracy.
2: 1,4,2,3
1: 1,3,4,2
1: 1,4,3,2
1: 1,2,3,4