Like the Olympics, every four years the American party conventions appear on our television screens. There will be a sea of balloons and cheering, smiling delegates.

Tear-jerking speeches will follow about motherhood and apple pie. And at the end of it all we will know what we do today: this November’s presidential contest will be between Barack Obama and John McCain.

On this side of the Atlantic, some might be tempted to dismiss the process of electing US presidents as overelaborate and slightly vulgar.

Yet when those placard-waving convention delegates appear on our screens, we should ask when we last saw that sort of enthusiasm for politics here. It may be that less than half of American voters take part in the presidential elections this November. But in a country where people are able to vote to decide not only who sits in the Oval Office, but also their local sheriff, overall participation in the democratic process is far higher.

The drawn-out timetable for choosing American presidents evolved before the industrial era but US politics, being open and democratic, is far better suited to the age of YouTube than our own.

Three years ago, as a newly elected MP, I walked into the House of Commons believing our political system to be the envy of the world. Today I have come to see it as the “closed shop” system that it is. There is a shameful lack of accountability and transparency - and it’s not only a question of MPs’ expenses.

Westminster is an inward-looking village detached from the concerns of ordinary people. Elected in a highly marginal seat, I have been struck by the fact that most MPs come from safe seats. While there is always a chance that an MP might lose a seat in a general election, that majority of MPs from safe seats stand little realistic chance of being turfed out by the voters.

How different it is across the pond. Even in the rock-solid Democratic states such as Vermont, there was a real contest between Obama and Hillary Clinton. In Republican Texas, everyone had a say between McCain and his rivals. Even within those congressional districts gerrymandered to favour one party, no lawmaker is safe from a challenge if they are deemed to be not up to the job. Bed blockers in Congress don’t last long.

British general elections are decided in the 100 or so most marginal seats. It is there that the contest counts. Yet that means that anyone living in one of the other 500-plus constituencies has no real say over who is their MP. As a consequence our parliamentarians are much less responsive than US politicians.

Worse, many of those you send to parliament seem neither able nor willing to hold executive power to account. Why? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that too many MPs want to gain executive power rather than curtail it. Every backbencher seems to want to be a frontbencher. That means they pay greater attention to what their party bosses, the whips, think than the electorate. Thus is the career trajectory of most Westminster politicians determined by those within Westminster, not those back home. This automatically favours the steady-as-she-sinks careerist MPs who dominate SW1.

How different it is in America where the son of a Kenyan immigrant was able to prevail against Washington insiders and defeat the Clinton machine. Why? Because politics in America is open and democratic. It’s time to open up British politics, too.

In a book I am writing with Daniel Hannan MEP, to be published next month, we suggest bold reform to renew our political system. Part of our agenda advocates:

- A right of initiative: the Queen’s speech is Sir Humphrey Appleby’s legislative wish list - with occasional input from ministers. This is why it perennially contains measures that mainly suit the bureaucracy. We need a system that allows popular petitions to trigger votes on new laws in the Commons. A Queen’s speech that contained citizens’ bills might have purpose, rather than mere pageantry.
- A right of recall: it should be possible for people to trigger by-elections to unseat wayward MPs. In most walks of life it is possible to fire people who prove not to be up to the job, without having to wait five years.
- Open primaries: under David Cameron, the Conservatives have begun to use open primary contests to allow everyone in marginal seats to decide who their next MPs will be. This principle needs to be extended to safe seats. Without this sort of radical renewal, Britain’s political class will continue to suffer the contempt which sadly it deserves.

Douglas Carswell is the member of parliament for Harwich and blogs at www.talkcarswell.com. He is the co-author ofa book outlining a 12-month programme to renew Britain, to be published next month

Times Recommends

• Secret files show Thatcher's role in coup plot
• Veterans to boycott Shell after ban on poppy sales
• 'I survived so please let Baby RB live too'