Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: The government is formed by the majority in the lower house | |
Author: Ian (Australia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 19:19:06 12/01/04 Wed In reply to: Steph (U.S.) 's message, "U.S. Senate Model" on 16:49:47 12/01/04 Wed Under the US model, New Zealand would have virtually no say in the formation of the government, which might not impress Kiwis very much. It would also become vitally important to define exactly what would be the member units of the federation: is Australia to have 10 senators, or is each Australian state to have 10 senators? Should 10 senators represent the UK, or 10 each for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or 10 for each English region? Australia has a US-style Senate, but it is a relic from the times when states had widely diverging interests. Voters now elect senators who represent party interests, so the numerical advantage for smaller states becomes unjust. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Senate | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:35:34 12/01/04 Wed Both Britain and Canada have appointed, unelected upper houses, while Australia and New Zealand have elected upper houses. Many people in both Britain and Canada would like to move to elected upper houses, so establishment of the federation parliament would present the opportunity to do just that. It would have to be the most modern and up to date parliament with an elected upper house. No should the lower house have proportional representation or first-past-the-post. Again, both Britain and Canada have first-past-the-post. I believe New Zealand has proportional representation, and I am not sure about Australia. Both the upper and lower houses will have to standardised in the most modern and workable format. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Australia has preferential voting | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:57:24 12/01/04 Wed If you have, say, five candidates, you mark the squares with the numbers 1 to 5 to indicate your order of preference. If a candidate gets over 50% just with the number 1 votes, fines: they are elected. If no candidate gets over 50% of number 1 votes, the candidate who got the lowest number is eliminated, and their ballots are distributed among the other candidates according to the second preferences of those voters. If this still doesn't take anyone over 50%, the next lowest candidate is eliminated and their ballots distributed. You keep on at this until one of the candidates gets over 50%. Some states (in their state elections) have optional preferential voting, in which case you don't have to number all the squares, but just 1, 2, 3, as far as you wish. I prefer preferential voting to first past the post, because the "post" is always 50%, and you don't have to worry about "splitting the vote" and "tactical voting". [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Jim and Ian's points | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:47:49 12/01/04 Wed The trouble with having the same electoral system for Upper and Lower Houses is, I think, quite obvious: the party system would ensure (presuming that the same party was in majority in both houses, which is pretty inevitable) that there would be no point in having two houses at all. The party whips would ensure that the party's members in the Upper House would agree to legislation proposed by the party in the lower house, and object to the policies which were objected to by the party in the lower house. The only way in which you could prevent this would be to stagger elections, so that you could have a different party controlling each house. But this in itself raises a further problem: when the two are in conflict over a policy, which takes precedence? Obviously, the House whose elections were most recent, since they would be a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate. So there'd be no point in having two houses, once again. Now, you could remedy that by having different electoral procedures for each house, such as first past the post for the Lower House and proportional representation for the Upper House. But then there is no way to resolve which takes precedence when there is disagreement. Personally, I think that bicameral legislature is a joke if both houses are elected, for these and other reasons. A case in point is Blair's attempt to make the Lords more 'accountable'. What has been the result? The rise of the Commons to the point where we have unicameral legislature in practice if not in theory. On a related point, I and millions of other Englishman are allergic to proportional representation. Even though PR would practically institutionalise Tory government, I would still rather have the occasional socialist administration than the ghastly perpetuation of coalition government which PR entails. I think that it is important to remember that the only party to win an election outright under a PR system (i.e., get 51% for one party) was the National Socialist German Workers' Party in 1933. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: New Zealand has a mixed system with electorates and party lists | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:01:08 12/01/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: My View... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:17:20 12/01/04 Wed I would like to preserve the unelected and independent aspect of the current House of Lords. However, I would reform the political dimension. I propose that 40% of members would represent the current "establishment" with Landed Dukes, Life Peer Business Tycoons, Religious figures, Keepers of the Golden Slipper etc. As the House is a scrutinising chamber, we need diversity of background and opinion in order to serve its purpose. The House of Lords do not initiate legislation, so I see no need for it to be majority elected. Wiping away centuries of tradition, New Labour style, by abolishing ancient titles would not, in my view, add anything to our democracy. Neither would the creation of a carbon copy of the Commons, with whatever voting mechanism. However, I would reform the current political dimension of the House of Lords. The remaining 60% of members would be elected by proportional representation, using the popular vote of the General Election. Therefore, the proportions would reflect the general opinion at the time the Government was formed. I believe this presents a greater democratic mandate than staggered elections, and would not require an additional poll. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:41:30 12/01/04 Wed Chap recently suggested to me that we abolish the Commons and have a 100% hereditary Lords... but he was an earl so perhaps he was biased! Seriously, though, I fail to see the point of a second chamber if it were to be elected on party lines. Might as well have one chamber. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: well... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:48:54 12/01/04 Wed The House of Lords is already composed of political members, Government, oppposition and others. I am merely suggesting that we reform the method of selection for this political component. The PR device would restrict the numbers that each party can have in the chamber, thus eliminating the current practice of Governments loading up the Lords with members of their own persuasion. It would also give a voice to other parties that would never be represented by FPTP. Diversity is what we are trying to achieve. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Really? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:23:20 12/01/04 Wed I always thought that the second greatest thing about FPTP is that it totally prevents the loony minority parties from getting anywhere. BNP and the Communists stand no chance in FPTP, but under PR they'd be in Parliament! Like in France, where there are actually Communist and National Front representatives. Diversity is one thing, but PR allowed NASDAP to get a foot in the door in Germany, and we all know what that led to. Okay, so you could have a minimum cut-off point, say, 10%, but that's arbitrary and not really a lasting solution: mainly because a party which gets 9.9% of the vote has no seats but a party which gets 10% of the vote gets 10% of the seats - as soon as that happens, the system seems ridiculous and you have to start the whole reform process of again. I'm a great believer in our system. It worked fine until a certain party started to horse around with it, which opened a whole can of worms, largely because if you partially reform something it makes no sense, and so there are immediate calls reform it completely. Mr Blair, having read Machiavelli, knows this well, and cunningly came up with this solution so that it would appear as though public opinion was driving the changes. On the contrary, until he deliberately imposed a crap partial-reform compromise almost everyone was happy with the system apart from a few intellectuals who don't like anything which is 100% rational. The British constitution was a triumph over logic of the organic. I believe that Aristotle called it catalaxy. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes but... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:31:24 12/01/04 Wed You cannot claim to be a mature true democracy, if you design a political system to prevent views being aired that you find distasteful. Mature democracies can stomach these parties, just as mature democracies don't tend to have them in the first place. It is this Government and its ppolicies that have created the surge of the BNP [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Fair point. I stand corrected. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:33:43 12/01/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I prefer preferential voting | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 03:45:09 12/02/04 Thu FPTP means a candidate can be elected with just thirty-odd percent of the vote. With preferential voting, a candidate must get over 50%. You don't get the situation of, say, two similar candidates getting 30% each and a very different candidate getting 32% and beating the two of them. The preferences of the voters are better accomodated. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |