NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently in Britain there has been a change supporting more devolution of power to lower levels, but, previous to this, Centralism had been the pervasive train of thought. The country has been viewed to be of the right size to be adequately governed entirely from London.

Then on the other hand, I've often heard Americans argue that things like Proportional Representation are not fit for their nation due to, amongst other things, the large size.

So, is there some kind of ideal size for a nation to take? Some kind of balance that can be struck? Or is it somewhat of a moot point?

I've never understood the idea that a country can be too big for proportional representation. What is the arguement behind it?

I think it would depend more on the nation in question

I've never understood the idea that a country can be too big for proportional representation. What is the arguement behind it?
I think it's due to parties such as the greens and people such as Howard Dean gaining more influence under proportional representation, and most American citizens thinking that this is not really a very good thing.

The average conservative is not going to look upon their party too happily if it teams up with the KKK to get a majority, and since coalition partners influence each others' policies, it'd make most parties more right-wing, or left-wing, and green issues would play a larger role in the policies of both the Republicans and the Democrats.

So really, it's more a "we like it the way it is" kind of affair, rather than "there is actually a good reason for this" type thing going on.

I've never understood the idea that a country can be too big for proportional representation. What is the arguement behind it?

"We don't want those filthy commies getting any representation"

"We don't want those filthy commies getting any representation"

I love the idea of western democracy. You get to vote but someone already in power picks who you get to vote for and in the countries with the fptp system, if your thoughts deviate from the local hive mind then your vote becomes worthless and you might as well have stayed at home and drunk beer or something.

And then well look at this biased and deeply flawed system and say to ourselves 'we like this, lets go inflict it on the world and anyone that disagrees with us we'll call a terrorist and shoot'.

There's several issues here. I'll deal with them in turn.

Recently in Britain there has been a change supporting more devolution of power to lower levels, but, previous to this, Centralism had been the pervasive train of thought. The country has been viewed to be of the right size to be adequately governed entirely from London.

Although I genuinely support devolution and a change to a federal system in the UK (including the Channel Islands and Mann) i'm genuinely downright suspicious of Labour-esque devolution:

1) All of Labour's devolution options have been exactly in line with Euro-regions - the level of government and administrative unit espouced by the EU commission. That includes the regions of the UK offered and the assemblies of Scotland and Wales. (Obviously the NI assembly isn't included in this, since it was forst formed in the 20s). Again, as much as I support a pan-European federation, the current EU likes to poke it's nose in where it's clearly not wanted, nor needed. Devolution based on these euro-regions isn't bad, but darn suspicious.

2) Let's see who got devolution (bar NI): Scotland, Wales and the North East (and rejected). All vote Labour, and Labour would be guranteed support in each one on a near permanant basis, in some form. England as a complete entity or the central/south were not offered devolution, and tend to vote Tory. (Although this is more created by quirks in our FPTP electoral system than actual votes; Scotland only voted 2% more Labour than England but got much more seats as a percentage.)

In short, it's designed to ensure that Labour can keep hold of power in their 'strongholds'. Yes, I am a cynic.

Then on the other hand, I've often heard Americans argue that things like Proportional Representation are not fit for their nation due to, amongst other things, the large size.

Well, Russia uses PR for the state Duma, and on the other hand, it's used in all the titchy countries in Europe, including Scotland and Wales for their assemblies. Nothing wrong with it, on the contrary, it would be far better for the US/UK/Canada (the only major countries I can really think of that use FPTP) to go PR, perferably by STV.

So, is there some kind of ideal size for a nation to take? Some kind of balance that can be struck? Or is it somewhat of a moot point?

Depends. A relatively homogenous country like the USA or Canada can be quite large, albeit with powerful state governments. However, Yugoslavia for example was much smaller than the USA, but collapsed into many smaller countries after civil war. It depends, I think, on whether any ethnic groups can get on. the south slavs couldn't. Meanwhile the Swiss, with French, German, Italian and Romansch speaking groups have got on well since the early 1800s.

I love the idea of western democracy. You get to vote but someone already in power picks who you get to vote for and in the countries with the fptp system, if your thoughts deviate from the local hive mind then your vote becomes worthless and you might as well have stayed at home and drunk beer or something.

And then well look at this biased and deeply flawed system and say to ourselves 'we like this, lets go inflict it on the world and anyone that disagrees with us we'll call a terrorist and shoot'.

Gerrymandering in the US makes it even better:

In country without gerrymandering, you choose legislator. In Soviet America, legislator chooses YOU!

There's several issues here. I'll deal with them in turn.



Although I genuinely support devolution and a change to a federal system in the UK (including the Channel Islands and Mann) i'm genuinely downright suspicious of Labour-esque devolution:

The Channel Islands and Mann aren't in the UK, so good luck with that one.

1)(Obviously the NI assembly isn't included in this, since it was forst formed in the 20s)

Not quite, the Parliament of Northern Ireland was formed in the 20s and, along with the Government of Northern Ireland made NI about 90% autonomous).

Parliament was abolished in.......1974 (or 73?). The Assembly (not counting the upstarts in the 70s and 80s) came into being in 98 and has been suspended since 2002.

Gerrymandering in the US makes it even better:

In country without gerrymandering, you choose legislator. In Soviet America, legislator chooses YOU!

Yeah, Thatcher did that with the county boundaries in the 80's. I'm just glad it's not as prevalent over here.

I've become more and more in favour of constitutional reform as this Government has become less and less democratic. They recently tried to pass a Bill that gave Ministers the right to pass Primary Legislation without consulting Parliament - ie unrestricted legislative powers to the Executive!

I still don't support PR, though, as I find it a flawed concept that leads to disproportionate Government. In my opinion, what the UK needs is a strong, elected, upper chamber.

I've become more and more in favour of constitutional reform as this Government has become less and less democratic. They recently tried to pass a Bill that gave Ministers the right to pass Primary Legislation without consulting Parliament - ie unrestricted legislative powers to the Executive!

I still don't support PR, though, as I find it a flawed concept that leads to disproportionate Government. In my opinion, what the UK needs is a strong, elected, upper chamber.

Why would you want an elected upper chamber?

Recently in Britain there has been a change supporting more devolution of power to lower levels, but, previous to this, Centralism had been the pervasive train of thought. The country has been viewed to be of the right size to be adequately governed entirely from London.

Then on the other hand, I've often heard Americans argue that things like Proportional Representation are not fit for their nation due to, amongst other things, the large size.

So, is there some kind of ideal size for a nation to take? Some kind of balance that can be struck? Or is it somewhat of a moot point?

I think size 14-16 would be ideal. But it shouldn't be too tight around the hips.

Why would you want an elected upper chamber?
I'll give you a clue; it's a 9 letter word, starting with D and ending with 'cracy.' Most of it think of it as quite important in the 21st Century. :)

I think size 14-16 would be ideal. But it shouldn't be too tight around the hips.

:p

I've become more and more in favour of constitutional reform as this Government has become less and less democratic. They recently tried to pass a Bill that gave Ministers the right to pass Primary Legislation without consulting Parliament - ie unrestricted legislative powers to the Executive!

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill?

Didn't completely remove Parliament's power to look at legislation, but completely gutted it..reduced them to powers normally used for Statutory Instruments...basically fuck all debate and a sham vote. Would have made Parliament just a formality, using only negative resolution procedure which means legislation is laid before the Commons and they can only annul it if they wish.

And it allowed Ministers to change Primary Legislation using Secondary Legislation. Which is awful.

I think size 14-16 would be ideal. But it shouldn't be too tight around the hips.

Beat me to it ... damn ... *kicks dirt*

I'll give you a clue; it's a 9 letter word, starting with D and ending with 'cracy.' Most of it think of it as quite important in the 21st Century. :)

Why though? The upper house is nothing more than an oversight for the lower house, it can't make law or prevent the lower house from making law (except in one instance). It strength was once its impartiality, the members may have had personal political views but were under no pressure to vote along party lines and it provide a forum for the bill being passed through the lower house to be discussed and looked at in more depth.

Now you have members being appointed by the parties, you lose alot of the detachment that the lords once had and the parties can exert more influence in the decisions of the upper house. If you had an elected upper house then it would probably end up composed in the same proportions as the lowers house giving even more influence to the parties at, most importantly, put in jeopardy the most important function of the upper house, its' ability to block a bill that allows the government to self perpetuate.

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill?

Didn't completely remove Parliament's power to look at legislation, but completely gutted it..reduced them to powers normally used for Statutory Instruments...basically fuck all debate and a sham vote. Would have made Parliament just a formality, using only negative resolution procedure which means legislation is laid before the Commons and they can only annul it if they wish.

And it allowed Ministers to change Primary Legislation using Secondary Legislation. Which is awful.

That's the one. Although I never heard what actually happened to it - it was snuck through so quietly it was virtually impossible to keep track of. I assume it was lost to Parliamentary time.

And our wonderful media? Oh, when they're tapping Prince Charles's phone or photographing some drunk footballer, they are the 'defenders of democracy' and 'standing up for the public'. But the one time democracy actually needs them, they're completely silent.

That's the one. Although I never heard what actually happened to it - it was snuck through so quietly it was virtually impossible to keep track of. I assume it was lost to Parliamentary time.

The Guardian kicked up a small fuss about it, prompting a biggish internet campaign with a small media campaign against it and the government withdrew it after realising that people had caught on.

Why though? The upper house is nothing more than an oversight for the lower house, it can't make law or prevent the lower house from making law (except in one instance).
The Upper Chamber is just as capable of introducing legislation as the Lower. Governments will usually start half their Bills here so that both Houses are looking at something at the beginning of the Parliamentary year.

It strength was once its impartiality, the members may have had personal political views but were under no pressure to vote along party lines and it provide a forum for the bill being passed through the lower house to be discussed and looked at in more depth.
There is absolutly no reason why this could not be carried into an elected chamber. Long terms, say for the duration of three Parliaments, with no possibility of re-election, would maintain this tradition of Peers being in Parties, but not bound by them.

Now you have members being appointed by the parties, you lose alot of the detachment that the lords once had and the parties can exert more influence in the decisions of the upper house.
I do believe you are the first person, other than Lord Twit of Twallopville, to defend Hereditory Peers in 100 years.

If you had an elected upper house then it would probably end up composed in the same proportions as the lowers house giving even more influence to the parties at, most importantly, put in jeopardy the most important function of the upper house, its' ability to block a bill that allows the government to self perpetuate.
Again, there is no reason why this would need to be the case. In fact, if you look at the American Model, the public will often vote different ways in order to stop one party having all the power (Pres/Congress has been divided for most of the last century). Other measures, such as rotating when Peers are elected (say 1/3 every General Election) would reduce the impact of popular politics.

Your arguments are all very weak ones that democracy is more than capable of dealing with. We go around the world spreading 'freedom' and our ideas of democracy, and yet can't get it right ourselves at home. Unelected chambers went out with the 19th Century, and it's time the UK caught up with history.

Beat me to it ... damn ... *kicks dirt*

I'm not sure I believe you that you fit into size 14-16 :p

I'm not sure I believe you that you fit into size 14-16 :p

I meant in women. ;)

However ... our 14-16 may be different than your 14-16 ...

No-one else has a dirty mind?? Damn.....

No-one else has a dirty mind?? Damn.....

Oh, believe me, I do. But I figured if I said 17 centimeters, and 5 around, that might get me into trouble...

No-one else has a dirty mind?? Damn.....

Oh, believe me, I do. But I figured if I said 17 centimeters, and 5 around, that might get me into trouble...

I think this is basically one of those situations where the dirty thoughts and innuendo are more or less implied by the question and go without saying.

But no, you aren't the only ones. ;)

Oh, believe me, I do. But I figured if I said 17 centimeters, and 5 around, that might get me into trouble...

*whips out the measuring tape*

:eek:

Damn near spot on!

*whips out the measuring tape*

:eek:

Damn near spot on!

Rrrrrrrright, because you are of course proud owner of a metric measuring tape... :p

Rrrrrrrright, because you are of course proud owner of a metric measuring tape... :p

Every measuring tape manufactored in the US has metric if you flip it over. Want pics for proof? (Of the measuring tape! :p ) I have sewing machines and all sorts of things. One of my many talents includes tailoring. :)

*whips out the measuring tape*

:eek:

Damn near spot on!

Good for you! I hope that works out for you.

For me though, I think downsizing would be a little unpractical, not to mention painful. :eek:

Good for you! I hope that works out for you.

Hasn't failed me yet!

For me though, I think downsizing would be a little unpractical, not to mention painful. :eek:

Oh, you ...

Hasn't failed me yet!

Glad to hear it! http://www.puresportscar.com/forums/images/smilies/thumb-up.gif

Oh, you ...

Oh, snap! :D

*nudges Glitzi

Aren't they just cute when they're comparing sizes? :D

*nudges Glitzi

Aren't they just cute when they're comparing sizes? :D

Just wait for the thread calling for proof!

Though one person on this forum has seen mine. I won't say who. ;)

I think size 14-16 would be ideal. But it shouldn't be too tight around the hips.

Damn. I was going to say that 8 or 9 inches would be just about right.

I'm guessing Fass. You two always acted like you were sleeping together anyway.

Tough to do from thousands of miles away.

Damn. I was going to say that 8 or 9 inches would be just about right.

Size Queen.

Tough to do from thousands of miles away.
*Raises eyebrow*

You actually corrected the typo in my name in order to quote a deleted post?

um, i've heard its about 7 inches...wait what are we talking about?

*Raises eyebrow*

You actually corrected the typo in my name in order to quote a deleted post?

Yep! I'm nutty like that. I shamelessly flirt with Ilie, too ... think we're sleeping together? :p

um, i've heard its about 7 inches...wait what are we talking about?

Oh who knows ... I think this has gotten so far off topic that there's no hope of recovery.

Let's talk about bears or monkeys or somethin'.

Yep! I'm nutty like that. I shamelessly flirt with Ilie, too ... think we're sleeping together? :p
:) I never said you were sleeping together.

Oh who knows ... I think this has gotten so far off topic that there's no hope of recovery.

Let's talk about bears or monkeys or somethin'.

The ideal size of bears and monkeys? :eek:

The ideal size of bears and monkeys? :eek:

Boy, is this thread gonna get nuked. And I posted some proper answers as well. :mad:

Boy, is this thread gonna get nuked. And I posted some proper answers as well. :mad:

Sorry old boy, I guess your posts just didn't "measure up" as it were. :p

Sorry old boy, I guess your posts just didn't "measure up" as it were. :p

ROFL! Now that's comedy!

The ideal size of bears and monkeys? :eek:

Ewww ... ok now we're getting into some weird furry thing and that's a road even I don't want to go down ...

Sorry old boy, I guess your posts just didn't "measure up" as it were. :p

:p

Ewww ... ok now we're getting into some weird furry thing and that's a road even I don't want to go down ...

I would certainly hope not! But you started it...

I would certainly hope not! But you started it...

Yes ... yes I did ... I should be spanked.

Yes ... yes I did ... I should be spanked.

*Watches as everyone quietly shuffles from the room, careful not to make eye contact*

Moments later, a cricket is heard nearby...

Yes ... yes I did ... I should be spanked.

*Gets measuring ta.... er.....

Ok, I'm officially leaving this thread now. You're bad influence, you are.

Yep! I'm nutty like that. I shamelessly flirt with Ilie, too ... think we're sleeping together? :p

Come on dude, you're going too far. :rolleyes:

Just wait for the thread calling for proof!

Though one person on this forum has seen mine. I won't say who. ;)

It wasn't me!