Re: Double-Majority (EU) vs One-Man-One-Vote (USA)

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:13:52 +0000 (UTC) vjp2 (== "vjp2") writes:

vjp2> In listening to the Europeans on their new Double Majority (vs
vjp2> the USA "Connecticut Compromise") I was thinking what insights
vjp2> we might gather. Under the proposed EU constitution, certain
vjp2> votes would require a majority both by Nation and by population
vjp2> - this is certainly the closest to the USA system the EU has
vjp2> ever come. In the USA we have two national legislatures - one
vjp2> in which each "State" has two Senators, and one in which each
vjp2> equally populated "District" has one Congresscritter.

I think you are wrong here. We were actually closer to the US system
before the constitution. We have two legislative 'chambers' too: The
European Parliament, and the European Council. The number of
parliament members from a state are related to the population of that
state. The Council consists of one member per state, the head of its
government. In the Council, each member had/has one vote. But the
constitution will change this to the, a bit complex, double-majority
system (55% of the states representing 65% of the population).

So the EU gets a bit nearer to 'one man, one vote' with this, and
farer away from the US system [I'm not rating it].

vjp2> One big difference between USA/UK vs Europe on one-man one-vote is
vjp2> almost impossible to explain to one another: how in the Anglo
vjp2> world each representative has one physically bounded region
vjp2> tying (grounding) him to a specific constituency, thereby making
vjp2> each representative a lot less ideological than in Europe where
vjp2> rather than cut boundaries, each city might have several seats
vjp2> and the top vote getters (say with about 10% each) would get the
vjp2> seats.

That's not true eiter. The situation is quite different among EU
members, AFAIK. At least in Germany (almost) every national parliament
member has his own district that elected him. And if anybody is
bounded to it's own region, then the members of the European Council
are!

--
David

I'm not interested in "being right"..
I'm more interested in seeing a genuine discussion,,
(hence the wide crosspost)..

Thanks for the info on Germany - I didn't know it..

The USA "Founders" had the following unique viewpoint: they had a lot
of experience with different forms of government - a huge laboratory -
and they had a broad education in Classics.. they were a lot more
realistic than the post-WW2 world.. but perhaps today's world is just
as realistic.. the USA Founders were suspicious of just about anyone
seeking power.. a lot of other democracies tend to overempower their
leaders.. just my view points.. and more test view points than
permanent ones.. I agree with Bickel that the original USA system may
have been more capapble of representing many different cross-sections
than today's system.. also, maybe technology changes things..

- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Health Reform means abolishing FDR's insurance tax exemption]
[To stop SPAM, Charge net-postage] [Abolish 16th (Inc Tx) Amendment]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:22:50 +0000 (UTC) vjp2 (== "vjp2") writes:

vjp2> I'm not interested in "being right"..
vjp2> I'm more interested in seeing a genuine discussion,,
vjp2> (hence the wide crosspost)..

But you can't base a discussion on false assumptions; that's why I
corrected your post.

So what *do* you want to discuss?

vjp2> Thanks for the info on Germany - I didn't know it..

If you are interested in more, I can try to explain the exact system:
Every voter has two votes; one for a local candidate, and one for a
party. Every candidate that gets a majority in his constituency gets a
seat in the parliament. But additionally, every party getting more
than 5% of the second votes, can nominate additional parliament
members, until the actual percentage of parliament members of that
party matches their percentage of the second votes. This removes the
"the winner takes it all" principle, while still having local
representatives.

vjp2> The USA "Founders" had the following unique viewpoint: they had a lot
vjp2> of experience with different forms of government - a huge laboratory -
vjp2> and they had a broad education in Classics.. they were a lot more
vjp2> realistic than the post-WW2 world.. but perhaps today's world is just
vjp2> as realistic.. the USA Founders were suspicious of just about anyone
vjp2> seeking power.. a lot of other democracies tend to overempower their
vjp2> leaders.. just my view points.. and more test view points than
vjp2> permanent ones.. I agree with Bickel that the original USA system may
vjp2> have been more capapble of representing many different cross-sections
vjp2> than today's system.. also, maybe technology changes things..

I don't fully understand what you mean with 'cross-sections'? Do you
mean that the anglo-american two-party system polarizes too much?
That's at least my appreciation. I intensifies a false black and white
view of the wourld, as it can also be seen here on the usenet
regularly: "All Democrats are idiots" or "All Republicans are idiots".

There is one additional important thing that the "Founders" had to
consider: the huge size of the country. When a new German constitution
was negotiated in the late 1940s, they were arguing if we should have
an American-style Senate to represent the states or not. They have
chosen a different system, that would be similar to an US-Senate
consisting of the governors from each state. But I would say that the
founders of the USA did not have this choice, because the Gouvernors
could not travel all the way to Washington (or whereever)... but it is
no problem today (and has been chosen on the EU level too).

I would not say that leaders in Europe have more power, or are less
controlled, than the US president. Maybe they even more controlled,
since most European countries have separated the head of state (often
the monarch or a so-called president), and the head of government
(often called prime minister). The head of state usually makes no
political decisions, but instead has additional control functions by
signing laws, approving the head the government or calling for new
elections (these powers are very diverse among European states).

This system apparently developed out of real monarchies, by reducing
the power of the monarch more and more. The US never had a (own)
monarch, so they chose a different system... but to say which one is
better is quite difficult.

--
David

	#1
David Frese	Re: Double-Majority (EU) vs One-Man-One-Vote (USA) On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:13:52 +0000 (UTC) vjp2 (== "vjp2") writes: vjp2> In listening to the Europeans on their new Double Majority (vs vjp2> the USA "Connecticut Compromise") I was thinking what insights vjp2> we might gather. Under the proposed EU constitution, certain vjp2> votes would require a majority both by Nation and by population vjp2> - this is certainly the closest to the USA system the EU has vjp2> ever come. In the USA we have two national legislatures - one vjp2> in which each "State" has two Senators, and one in which each vjp2> equally populated "District" has one Congresscritter. I think you are wrong here. We were actually closer to the US system before the constitution. We have two legislative 'chambers' too: The European Parliament, and the European Council. The number of parliament members from a state are related to the population of that state. The Council consists of one member per state, the head of its government. In the Council, each member had/has one vote. But the constitution will change this to the, a bit complex, double-majority system (55% of the states representing 65% of the population). So the EU gets a bit nearer to 'one man, one vote' with this, and farer away from the US system [I'm not rating it]. vjp2> One big difference between USA/UK vs Europe on one-man one-vote is vjp2> almost impossible to explain to one another: how in the Anglo vjp2> world each representative has one physically bounded region vjp2> tying (grounding) him to a specific constituency, thereby making vjp2> each representative a lot less ideological than in Europe where vjp2> rather than cut boundaries, each city might have several seats vjp2> and the top vote getters (say with about 10% each) would get the vjp2> seats. That's not true eiter. The situation is quite different among EU members, AFAIK. At least in Germany (almost) every national parliament member has his own district that elected him. And if anybody is bounded to it's own region, then the members of the European Council are! -- David

	#2
vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com	Re: Double-Majority (EU) vs One-Man-One-Vote (USA) I'm not interested in "being right".. I'm more interested in seeing a genuine discussion,, (hence the wide crosspost).. Thanks for the info on Germany - I didn't know it.. The USA "Founders" had the following unique viewpoint: they had a lot of experience with different forms of government - a huge laboratory - and they had a broad education in Classics.. they were a lot more realistic than the post-WW2 world.. but perhaps today's world is just as realistic.. the USA Founders were suspicious of just about anyone seeking power.. a lot of other democracies tend to overempower their leaders.. just my view points.. and more test view points than permanent ones.. I agree with Bickel that the original USA system may have been more capapble of representing many different cross-sections than today's system.. also, maybe technology changes things.. - = - Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm ---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}--- [Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards] [Health Reform means abolishing FDR's insurance tax exemption] [To stop SPAM, Charge net-postage] [Abolish 16th (Inc Tx) Amendment]