Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:19:58 -0800 (PST), Karl Auerbach wrote:

>> Karl, I respect your position, but is it realistic? Individuals register
>> with a particular party, not because they agree 100% with all its views, but
>> because on balance, it's position is the most agreeable, or because
>> alternative choices are intensely disagreeable.
>
>I don't disagree - but remember that "the party" gets its power from
>number of people who agree with its platform and vote their individual
>votes accordingly.

This is IMO an important point.  A constituency such as the
non-commercial one could wither away to only five small organisations
as members yet they still have the same votes as say the IP
Constituency which has 8,672 lawyers as members.

Perhaps we should have two "chambers" - one which is equal votes per
constituency (senate model) like the Names Council) and one which is
votes are proportional to membership/support (house model).  One could
argue the GA is the equivalent of the House but this then means that
in this analogy you have a House with no powers at all and a Names
Council with all the powers.

DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527