Mr. Cretney wrote-
I agree, however, that you shouldn't just take First Past the Post out
of the Westminster system and plonk in PR with everything else
unchanged. Although, many countries have done essentially that, with
varying degrees of success. The result is that parties have to work a
lot
Blake Cretney wrote:
>I'm not sure I follow you. If it's just a regulation passed by
>parliament, it can be amended by parliament. You seem to view normal
>laws as being harder to change than the constitution.
No, I just mean that there are a number of different things underpinning the
system,
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:31:14 +1000
LAYTON Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I think people have just come to associate majorities with
> >democracy, through the simple case of two alternatives, where
> >majority rule makes a kind of sense, but only as a special
> >case.
>
> Unfortunately, the
>Of course, you might be able to develop a system
>where judges are appointed regardless of their politics. Similarly,
>you might be able to choose Presidents without regard to their
>politics. But the result is that you get someone of random ideology,
>not someone who isn't political.
Perhaps
>I think people have just come to associate majorities with
>democracy, through the simple case of two alternatives, where
>majority rule makes a kind of sense, but only as a special
>case.
Unfortunately, the Westminster(ish) systems of Government; UK, Australia,
Canada; depend on the concept of
>> From: Bart Ingles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [EM] Majority Rule
>> Anthony Simmons wrote:
>> > >> Says who? Maybe as far as two-candidate elections are concerned. The
>> > >> phrase 'majority rule' itself seems historically recent.
>> >
>> > And perhaps a bit out of place in a conte
Mr. Ingles wrote-
Of course, it would depend on where you look within the process.
Multi-seat STV would do away with any pretense of majority rule within a
district. But when looking at the makeup of a legislature, it would be
more likely that a party with a majority of voters would control a
m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/29/01 12:20:39 AM, you wrote:
>
> <<[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> > See *consent of the governed* in the second paragraph of the U.S.A.
> > Declaration of Independence.
> >
> > Democracy means majority rule --- as far as elections are conc
In a message dated 7/29/01 12:20:39 AM, you wrote:
<<[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> See *consent of the governed* in the second paragraph of the U.S.A.
> Declaration of Independence.
>
> Democracy means majority rule --- as far as elections are concerned.
Mr. Ingles wrote-
Says who? Maybe
Anthony Simmons wrote:
>
> >> From: Bart Ingles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Subject: Re: Responses to some of Forest's ideas
>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > See *consent of the governed* in the second paragraph of the U.S.A.
> >> > Declaration of Independence.
> >> >
> >> > D
>> From: Bart Ingles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: Responses to some of Forest's ideas
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > See *consent of the governed* in the second paragraph of the U.S.A.
>> > Declaration of Independence.
>> >
>> > Democracy means majority rule --- as far as elect
11 matches
Mail list logo
