Right, I don't understand why so many legislatures go to the trouble of having a bicameral system, and then make both houses elected which means that both are subject to the same pressures.
In the US, the Senate used to be elected by state legislatures, and therefore represented the interests of the state governments in checking the federal government's power. The Constitutional amendment that began the direct election of Senators has had really catastrophic consequences.
The senate before 1913 was a hotbed of cronyism, and corruption, with seats going vacant for years at a time due to there being no requirement for the states to actually put people in the senate. The seventeenth amendment was not catastrophic by any means.
Really? Life in the United States has gotten catastrophically worse since 1913 because citizens vote for senators as opposed to the stirling types of people who are politicians at the state level?
Often one house still has additional isolation. For example, in the US the Senate was designed to be isolated through the use of longer terms, higher age limits, and some other procedural differences.
While it has been eroded by increased life-expectancy and modern media, I'd still consider heredity-based membership an unacceptably-extreme solution. (Also unconstitutional, but you'd need an amendment to rework the Senate anyway.)
The House of Lords isn't generally hereditary. A small portion of its members are hereditary peers, but (and I forget the details) this will ultimately end. The majority of members are life peers, appointed for contributions to public life/politics/etc.
Right, the US's real House of Lords is the Supreme Court, which likewise is a panel of life appointees with the power to strike down laws written by the elected legislature.
(Indeed, until 2009 the House of Lords was also the UK's highest court of appeal.)
