The House of Lords has many unelected Hereditary peers however would elected peers be a better option for the second chamber? Elected peers may result to rota system to represent minorities, there would be a large focus on getting re-elected as opposed to on work, and many people may lack experience, the chamber would become more focused on party politics as opposed to simply scrutinizing legislation.
Firstly as a result of an elected house of lords there could be an emphasis on getting re-elected which would result in more political ties and campaigns, this would also be a drain on time as well as money. Peers should spend their time working on relevant issues as opposed to trying to get re-election, various models of electing peers also relies on the peers being situated into a constituency which would create further complications and ‘safe seats’.
Elected peers could lack expertise that previous hereditary peers as on the basis that they are elected through an electoral system which very much involves politics, whereas hereditary peers are appointed on their merits expertise and experience. Many appointed peers are fairly prestigious in their relevant fields and well respected within society which could easily be considered more legitimate that peers elected through polls with no clear winner.
Finally all previous points are hindered by the fact that an elected house of lords would have a large amount of party politics which could result in gridlock. This would mean that no legislation would be passed with ease and everything would take a prolonged amount of time to complete. This would be through disagreements within both houses as the roll of party politics would become more prominent, peers are currently fairly impartial and act on their own behalf with little intervention from parties and whips.
An increase in elections for votes may result in ‘voter fatigue’ which is when voters do not feel the need to vote as elections are become to frequent and common and obscuring everyday life and creating inconvenience, also some voters feel that an elected second chamber would simply be unnecessary as the current model works fine with no problems.
An elected second chamber could also lead to a mirror image of the House of Commons for various reasons already mentioned, but this primarily means that debates will be made and lost to a soul definitive reason of winning the debate as opposed to finding reasonable and logical resolutions, this would happen as a result of young egocentric peers being elected, probably with the desire to be a peer on the basis of the power and authority that comes with the prestigious role.
An elected second chamber would negatively influence parliament for several reasons the mere fact that it is said to legitimize the second house is irrelevant as it is legitimate through the process which peers are appointed in the sense that the PM is elected thus it is a form of indirect democracy. Time would be wasted elected peers focusing on getting re-elected; the peers would lack expertise that their predecessors have, party politics and lines would hinder decision making. Voters may decline as a result in an increase in frequency of elections and finally a mirror image of the House of Commons is aimless, if this is the illogical intention of an elected chamber, why not enlarge the House of Commons.