Proportional for the Upper House. Voted in on a rolling five year basis. Power to force a Commons election on a 65% vote and control of The Ministry of Justice. Commons still FPTP and to appoint the government as usual.

Failing systems

Britain uses First Past The Post to elect MPs. The controlling majority then determines the government, automatically sanctioned by the monarch on the basis of dynasty survival to always back winners. It has survived and developed for centuries. Compared to most, it was highly successful. Revolutions, excepting Cromwell's nearly 4 centuries ago, did not happen.

But times have changed. There is more than a choice between US style presidential system, the EU idea of 'limited democracy' or staying with the British way. The 2024 election caused such a deviation from votes cast and results as to nullify arguments that it produces stable and decisive government. Any major change must be an advance on existing alternatives.

An elected monarch to propose legislation that can only be approved by elected people is at the heart of most presidential systems. Executive authority is vested in an individual (and, in effect, their retinue) plus the right to initiate proposals for legislation. Power is divided and, in effect, shared between the elected king and those who can block proposals considered inappropriate. In the US a written constitution aims to check executive abuse of power. The system is a remarkably successful mixture of positive and negative law.

The negative aspect is that law is considered prohibitory in the English tradition that the U.S. inherited: unless prohibited you are allowed. The Positive aspect is that laws can be struck down by The Supreme Court if declared unconstitutional: unless allowed they are prohibited. Rights law can have a strangely authoritarian aspect in that it give the state the power to decide what are and what are not rights and, in a strange way, nullify its own laws .

There are many checks and balances in the US system, such as membership of the Supreme Court is for life but judges are appointed by the political persuasion of the executive of the day confirmed by a simple majority in the elected US Senate. Of all the presidential systems, the US appears to be most successful. It was an improvement on the English system of the day but did not develop as much, despite several amendments to its constitution in the meantime.

Now the US, like the British system, seems to be teetering on the edge of major failure.

Meanwhile, following the Mid C20 ideological war and mass killing of innocents across the World, The EEC, which morphed into the EU, rose from the ashes. Blaming irresponsible voters, it attempted to create 'limited democracy', supposedly a better system than the US while avoiding the strange British First Past The Post with its anachronistic, unelected hereditary House of Lords and head of state.

The EU follows the US arrangement with an executive with the right to initiate proposals for law. In addition, it controls proposals for amendments where its veto can only be overridden by a unanimous vote (a vanishingly small probability) of the EU Council of Ministers. No EU law or amendment can be proposed, in effect, without the approval of the EU Commission, itself not directly elected.

'If the Commission does not agree with any amendments, the Council can only overrule the objection by unanimous decision. If the Commission considers that the amendments excessively change the proposal, it has the right to withdraw its proposal.'

EU source: https://t.ly/dNDVu

However, the President of the EU Commission is not directly elected and the method of candidate selection and appointment has been fluid and seemingly opaque over the years.

'Limited democracy' appears to be an attempt to retain as much democracy without the possibility, as many perceive, of voters ushering in despots and dictators. The infamous 1933 Enabling Act in Germany, approved by a referendum, appeared to justify less than democratic aspects. No political system can support itself. All depend on the backing of society. By the time of that notorious referendum, democracy was dead. To blame it for the horror that followed is to blame democracy and many millions who were equally innocent

The EU system seems sufficiently flawed to join the rest as unworthy of replication. This collective failure calls for a new approach. I beg you to consider it.

Means, methods and challenges

Elected people should be part delegate and part representative. The two are not exclusive. Delegated responsibility is to ensure the value and worth of a vote is not to be diluted or eliminated. The elected have no right to give away, by abuse of temporary vested authority from voters, their duty to ensure just and effective legislation. So doing they, act like thieves selling stolen goods

As things change, manifestos cannot be anything more than declarations of intent. Voters do not, cannot, tell the future; expecting expert and correct forensic knowledge about economics, jurisprudence etc from anyone, educated or otherwise, is a nonsense. People vote for those they feel will do well by them. There's nothing wrong with this, moreso, it's how things work. The vast majority of the job of the elected is to represent and handle what comes up in a manner that respects the trust of those who voted for them. Representation makes engagement with change without betraying voters' wishes practical.

This dual nature of representation and delegation (in Great Britain) is critical and, astonishingly, hardly appreciated. The next stage is to consider the best method of electing MPs with this hybrid responsibility.

First Past the Post is well suited to a decentralised nation with semi or almost fully autonomous areas like those that existed up to the late middle ages. Matters of defence, religion, unified legal and justice system called for a national government. But most other aspects were local. FPTP produced a parliament quite suited to the need for largely autonomous areas to cooperate and benefit from centralised power. A tiny pool of people involved in approving MPs, long before electoral reform, reduced things to little more than the strongest local man (usually male in those days) wins.

Since the Tudors, local autonomy disintegrated at an increasing pace. Huge leaps appeared with the arrival of the railways, the telephone, internet and so on. This ended with a situation where the 2024 election gave an overwhelming majority in The House of Commons to a party with fewer votes in the previous election where it was radically crushed by the opposition. FPTP, which worked well for centuries, succumbed to its fatal flaw. Its advantage because it made for decisive government pushed too far, turning into a potentially fatal threat to democracy.

The shout goes up for proportional voting. But a 2011 referendum under the Tory / Liberal Democrat coalition saw the electorate reject it. Most did so because it introduced party lists and appeared to suggest that political parties should be incorporated into the political constitution. People did not like voting for party appointees rather than individuals, even if they are selfish lobby fodder or the ideologically correct selected by party machines. They particularly disliked inevitable post election secret meetings, trading voters' interests away to form viable coalitions to dominate legislative assemblies in proportional systems.

It is almost axiomatic that governments, or controlling groups that check proposed legislation, are created in proportional systems which no one ever voted for. Small parties can have radically exaggerated influence and effective power because a few elected people can demand a high price to hand power to a large faction or group of allies. While proportional produces radically better initial results, consequent governments reduce its seemingly superior status to something similar to the travesty of the British 2024 Labour government. The new Prime Minister had the cheek to declare a mandate today (6th of July). Were he from any party which had won in such a way, it would have been equally dishonest. He knows full well.

Just like the failure of the three political systems, FPTP and Proportional voting are equally 'challenged'. This calls for an imaginative approach.

Means and Ends Democracy

Democracy exists to find out what is best to do. It respects disagreement and relies on compromise. In turn, the cost of compromise must always be less than the cost of non-cooperation. This proviso assumes a level of shared interest and culture to assure the cooperation of those a majority out votes. Meanwhile, change being inevitable, stable government capable of engaging with change is essential. Crudely, although the demands of humanity are constant, the means of satisfaction constantly change.

We need a stable government and legislative in a system framed to reflect local and national objectives motivated to listen and respect voters rather than resort to manipulation and, too often, downright dishonesty. Although seemingly impossible, there might be a way.

Strengths of FPTP can be combined with those of proportional representation/delegation.

Take the British system where the House of Commons is supreme and the controlling group appoints the government and Prime Minister, who is the closest Great Britain comes to a President. The plan would be to retain FPTP for the Commons but to scrap the House of Lords and replace it with something rather different with modified powers.

The Upper House would contain fewer members, say 250. They would be elected on a proportional system for given areas, each with approximately the same number of potential voters. Election dates would be one constituency every week, two weeks off for Christmas and New Year, over a five year cycle. This would create a slow-motion constantly new or reaffirmed membership which would inevitably reflect public opinion of how the controlling party in the Commons and their appointed government is performing.

The Upper House would have similar restricted powers as it has today with two major differences. Keeping the power the Prime Minister has to call an election after the Monarch has agreed to dissolve the government, the Upper House could with, say, a 65% majority vote, do the same thing. The second power would be to control The Ministry of Justice.

(Although I dislike titles, those that exist could be registered as a right but mention on things like driving licences and passports should be removed. I find them absurd, but signs of status are an important tool to keep people happy in public life and are surprisingly popular with others free of such social baubles)

This simple arrangement might make major constitutional change in the UK possible by introducing the positive aspects of proportional voting while retaining FPTP which no dominating party will every want abolished, because it always benefits the winners and whatever benefits it might otherwise bring

An imaginative adaption or evolution of the existing political system of Great Britain would likely, be vastly better than the weakness of proportional voting, or presidential systems of the EU and the US which would be to import ready-made failure- jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Doubtless there are other possibilities. If you think of any please help.