American Constitution

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... One can't force voters to be more mindful of facts.

Too true. Perhaps a quiz which must be passed in order to vote. Something tricky, like noting five candidates in that election and asking the voter to be able to identify the political affiliations of three of them....

Or correctly calculate the proper change to be made on a purchase....

Or some other means of demonstrating the tiniest gasp of hope that modern democracy is NOT an essay in ignorance....

I set my sights too high.

[Pannonian]

Too true. Perhaps a quiz which must be passed in order to vote. Something tricky, like noting five candidates in that election and asking the voter to be able to identify the political affiliations of three of them....

Or correctly calculate the proper change to be made on a purchase....

Or some other means of demonstrating the tiniest gasp of hope that modern democracy is NOT an essay in ignorance....

I set my sights too high.

Are there any institutions of a US government that might be able to model my idea of a technocratic second house? I know that that idea is a pipedream even in the UK, as it's traditionally used as a dumping ground for past it politicians and even when they demonstrate some independence, they are routinely threatened by the Commons. However, that idea is at least theoretically possible in the British model. Is the idea possible in the US model?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I have nothing to say except Pannonian's conception of technocracy is wildly off if he thinks China is anywhere close to it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Are there any institutions of a US government that might be able to model my idea of a technocratic second house? I know that that idea is a pipedream even in the UK, as it's traditionally used as a dumping ground for past it politicians and even when they demonstrate some independence, they are routinely threatened by the Commons. However, that idea is at least theoretically possible in the British model. Is the idea possible in the US model?

Our Senators used to represent their state governments in most states, now they are directly elected. When appointed by the states, some actually appointed based on demonstrated skill in some field of endeavor....some.....sometimes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Our Senators used to represent their state governments in most states, now they are directly elected. When appointed by the states, some actually appointed based on demonstrated skill in some field of endeavor....some.....sometimes.

And some states didnt have senators for months or even years due to gridlock and corruption at the state level

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And some states didnt have senators for months or even years due to gridlock and corruption at the state level

Yep...that too.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And some states didnt have senators for months or even years due to gridlock and corruption at the state level

But...the more local the political office in question, the less ignorant the voter about the issues (at least marginally). Moreover, we are more willing to ignore incumbency at those levels and there is somewhat more turnover in office -- which I think healthy.

[rory_20_uk]

The Senators are starting to have more clout - not leaving for the summer and passing laws preventing Trump undertaking certain activities - with a veto-proof amount.

With any luck this will continue until apart from offensive tweets he is the most hamstrung President in history (finally a first!)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The virtue in having an unelected Upper House is not merely in having "Technocrats" to revise your laws, it is in having an Upper House whose purpose is explicitly revisionary, because unlike the Lower House it does NOT have a democratic mandate to create law.

Opposition to an Elected Senate in the UK has nothing to do with support for traditional aristocratic privilege and everything to do with not wanting to have a genuine competitor to the House of Commons.

[HopAlongBunny]

[QUOTE=Philippus Flavius Homovallumus;2053756188]Opposition to an Elected Senate in the UK has nothing to do with support for traditional aristocratic privilege and everything to do with not wanting to have a genuine competitor to the House of Commons./QUOTE]

Much the same debate in Canada. Elect the Upper House to give it legitimacy; If it is elected, what differentiates it from the House of Commons? Powers will remain to edit/revise and not initiate money bills; Then why change it?
The Senate, as conceptualized in the Constitution, is hard to argue with; reality makes a mockery of the concept - always has. Between reform and abolition I am a hard convert to abolition.

[Montmorency]

The virtue in having an unelected Upper House is not merely in having "Technocrats" to revise your laws, it is in having an Upper House whose purpose is explicitly revisionary, because unlike the Lower House it does NOT have a democratic mandate to create law.

Opposition to an Elected Senate in the UK has nothing to do with support for traditional aristocratic privilege and everything to do with not wanting to have a genuine competitor to the House of Commons.

From the point of view of the Founders, I think they would prefer two chambers competing to in effect a fully-unicameral chamber.

How about an elected body of technocrats? To be eligible to vote for this upper chamber, you must hold a degree of higher or specialized education (and more-or-less the same qualifications to run).