Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - eliminate NC, keepconstituencies

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 01:03:56 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:

>
>I argue for retention of constituencies.
>
>The model of many city - state/provincal - county - national governments is
>elected representatives, who represent the (majority) will of their
>constituents.

Indeed but this is possible without formal constituencies.  Not that I
am proposing they be abolished but just pointing out they are not the
only way to have representatives.  One could quite seriously set up
parties or competing organisations which would put up candidates for
election as our representatives.

>In legislative fora, the senators/representatives/whatever propose policy
>and laws based on what their supporting constituents want.

There is a major difference here with DNSO though.  In almost every
democracy in the world representatives are based on population based
constituencies or sometimes geographical constituencies.  Both are
fairly objective measures such as one rep per electorate of 50,000
people or one rep per well defined geographical entity (such as a
state or province). 

Here in the DNSO we have seven constituencies based on groupings of
interest which clearly do not cover all those interested and affected.
Also all constituencies have an equal vote when their relevance to the
DNSO may not be equal and the number of people they represent may
especially not be equal.

>Many individuals, the vox populi so to speak, are unwilling or incapable of
>expressing their ideas in public fora. They will, however, express them to
>their elected representatives in more private circumstances.

Oh I agree one should have representatives and for that reason also at
this point in time would not support abandoning formal constituencies
as they are useful.  But we really do need to make sure that other
constituencies can be added on, defunct ones can be removed and most
of all a method of allocating voting strength.

>I favor the retention of the constituency system, with the proviso that we
>work to make sure we have enough constituencies to achieve fair and
>equitable representation of the special interests that exist, now and in the
>future.

Agreed but I don't think the answer is simply to add on one or two
more constituencies and give them three NC reps each and say that's
all folks.  We do need to also look at the overall balance of power
based on arguably similar membership of some constituencies.

DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html