Without pausing for breath, the second series of The West Wing picks up where the first left us hanging. The President, his daughter and his staff haved been fired upon; somebody’s going to emergency, somebody’s going to jail…

The two-parter “In the Shadow of Two Gunmen” is the perfect opportunity for the series’ first flashback episode, showing us how the various aides came to work for Jed Bartlet. The pace is maintained in “The Midterms”, which provides one of the most memorable scenes in the run when the President confronts a right-wing radio agony aunt, tossing biblical quotes at her in response to her Old Testament views on the gays.

We meet Ainsley Hayes, annoying-voiced token Republican who is a useful devil’s advocate as well as a provider of light relief. The series remains funny while it negotiates the pathos of Chinese Christian refugees and post-traumatic stress disorder, the latter being Bradley Whitford’s “This is for the Emmy” episode (I discover after writing that that he did indeed win one).

The weakest episode is “The Stackhouse Filibuster”. It’s relatively self-contained and a pleasant, memorable little tale, but it crosses the line from sentimental into mawkish. The framing narrative – staffers writing emails to their parents – is an interesting experiment but doesn’t come off at all, merely exaggerating the schmaltz.

Fortunately, the following episode is “17 People”, and from here on it’s five episodes of TV gold. The character of Toby comes centre stage and much of the episode is a dialogue between him and the President. It’s followed by “Bad Moon Rising”, which introduces new and entertaining White House Counsel Oliver Babish played by Oliver Platt (the teaser alone features a textbook example of Chekhov’s gun). Babish’s scenes with Mrs Bartlet – sorry, Dr Bartlet – are a delight. If, like me, you’re watching on DVD, you have to stick with it from here until the end.

The regular cast have grown into their roles and are marvellous in almost every scene. Aaron Sorkin continues to knock out fast-paced, intelligent, witty scripts and the directors – notably Thomas Schlamme – do a great job. nd if that wasn’t enough, the season ends with the tear-jerking marvel that is “Two Cathedrals”, possibly the single best episode of the entire series. As Leo McGarry says in the last line of that episode: “Watch this.”

Look out for: the “Who saved CJ?” plot, which doesn’t tally with what we saw in the season 1 cliffhanger; the marvellous character of Bernard Thatch; Felicity Huffman off of Desperate Housewives running rings around Toby in “The Leadership Breakfast”; the president of Columbia, President Santos; Dr Bartlet, Sr., Jed’s father, played by Laurence O’Donnell, a writer, executive story editor and producer on The West Wing, in his first TV role.

Don’t look out for: Mandy. She disappears from the cast without a word (and amen to that).

Six degrees of Alan Dale: more actors from The West Wing who pop up in Lost or 24. The most notable is Glenn Morshower who makes the first three of nine appearances as Mike Chysler. He served more than one other US president in all five series (so far) of 24 as Secret Service agent Aaron Pierce. Timothy Davis-Reed, who made the first of 51 appearances as reporter Mark O’Donnell in Shibboleth, appeared in an episode of the fourth series of 24. Sam Anderson, best known as Holland Manners in Angel and Bernard in Lost turns up in the same episode. And Devika Parikh, who appears as communications assistant Bonnie from the pilot episode until season 5, appeared in the first series of 24 as Maureen Kingsley. (I may have to give this pointless list its own page.)

Best episodes: In the Shadow of Two Gunmen, Ellie, 17 People, Two Cathedrals

Good news
This week’s edition of Charlie Brooker’s Screen Wipe is an extended 50-minute long US edition.

Bad news
As a result, it starts at 10pm and clashes with Time Trumpet on BBC Two. I know in these days of PDRs and the like we’re not supposed to care about such things. “Bah,” I say.

I note from the list on the BBC News website that, of the 19 people held on suspicion of plotting to blow up aircraft whose assets have been frozen (their assets, not the aircrafts’), their postcodes show that nine are from East 17.

This is far too serious a matter to derive humour from (translation: I can’t think of a decent gag), so make up your own jokes.

*Anyone recognising this lyric should confess now and seek repentance.

Imagine that the Iraqi Constitutional Convention had recommended that half of the national legislature should be appointed by the head of government. We would rightly have questioned if that was quite the commitment to democracy the West was hoping for.

Imagine that the Afghanistani Constitutional Convention had decided that some members of the legislature should be warlords chosen by the Head of State and guaranteed that their sons and heirs would take over from them as legislators. We would have wondered what had happened to the promise of democracy.

And yet there are more legislators sitting in the UK parliament who were not elected by the public than there are elected members. While our laws are being passed by an unelected House of Lords, we can’t claim to live in a democracy. A chamber of businessmen, charity workers, aristocrats and ex-MPs may have its attractions, but it’s not a symbol of a modern, free state.

The House of Lords – whatever we choose to call it in future – should be 100% elected. There is no room for MPs as recompense for being dumped by the electorate or standing down as a favour to the party, nor for representatives of an established church, nor for members who want to retire but aren’t allowed to. Experts in their field – who may be expert in no other – can be called on by select committees or asked to run enquiries or just write letters to parliamentarians like the rest of us; they do not need seats reserved for them in the upper chamber. If the House’s raison d’être is to provide expert input into drafting legislation, we should abolish it and spend the money on consultants.

Rather than adding more flavours of religion to balance things out, the bishops should leave – unless they can win an election. If the Church of England really is so important, surely its congregation will happily help elect a few of its clergy into Parliament. There is a case to made for ex officio seats – for senior councillors, or MEPs, or assembly members – but a mix of members with different mandates is not appealing. (Would EU rules against a dual mandate prevent this, or would it be permissible because an MEP would be a Lord ex officio and therefore only have one mandate?)

How should members of the upper house be elected? By STV. Proportional representation would make it politically reflective of society and increase minority representation. It would actually make it more likely that ecclesiastical candidates with popular support would return to the house, with or without a party tag. Whatever electoral system is chosen, though, it should be a separate vote – the secondary mandate, whereby a vote for MP in a General Election counts towards a party in the Lords – is unworkable while we have a First-Past-The-Post House of Commons. FPTP forces tactical voting, but how can you vote tactically against an incumbent, say, if that vote then goes against your preferred party – locally third but maybe second nationally – in the Lords? To use a Big Brother analogy: say Mikey and Grace are up for eviction and I dislike Grace so I vote for her to go. A secondary mandate system would be like taking that vote and adding it to votes in favour of Mikey in the final even though I didn’t want him to win, just because I’d decided to keep him in that one specific situation. If we must have a party list system for the House of Lords, then let’s have a separate party vote for the House of Lords on General Election day.

But why have second best (or third best or fourth best) when you can have the Single Transferable Vote. It’s quite simply the best, and Britain should have the best. It’s the electoral system Harrods would sell.

I have in the past been tempted by the idea of single, long terms, but this disenfranchises the electorate. One complaint about the current system of political (or “independent”) appointees is that, however dreadful their voting record, they’re in Parliament for life. What check is there on an elected Lord who can’t stand again? (Unless they’re eyeing up a seat in the Commons – or would that be banned too?) What realistic check is there on the first 10 years of a 15 year term? Any system of term limits denies the electorate choice. If you don’t trust voters, any attempt at democratic reform is doomed to fail.

The last, farcical set of votes on composition of the House of Lords occurred before the General Election. We have a new set of MPs now – it’s time to put the matter to the vote again. There’s no need for new commissions: plenty of Labour MPs want reform, LibDems want reform, and Cameron will want to demonstrate the bright new young changed hip modern Conservative Party by coming out as more reformist than Blair. Jack Straw should call a single vote offering a majority-elected option and see which way the wind blows.

(This entry fulfils the Blog for Victory PledgeBank pledge. For more on Lords reform marking his anniversary, see the New Politics Network and Elect the Lords.)