Sassenach wrote:Labour can form a majority with as little as 35% of the vote by most projections. The Tories need closer to 40%. That's a major disadvantage.

Yes, I agree. But it's not as simple as changing the boundaries that would 'fix' it. It's a feature of FPTP systems that you can get a 'bias' caused by differential turnout.

It wouldn't hurt though would it ? There really isn't a good reason not to support equalising the number of voters per seat except in certain cases like the Isle of Wight where it couldn't be done sensibly.

I prefer it to be based on population - an MP works for all inhabitants, not just voters.

Interesting (about federalism in Canada). How many conservatives in my country realize that it is not out of the bones of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, but from the Great White North from whence comes the fulfillment of their wet dream [forgive the vulgarity] of states' rights and true federalism? It seems that the 10 Canadian provinces are more like states, and the 50 American states are more like provinces, from what you have just told me.

The problem with the American constitution concerning federalism, whether the balance of power should tip more toward one of the other, is four nasty little words in the 10th Amendment "or to the People..." It leaves the whole thing open to interpretation, that it could mean precisely what you want it to mean, rather than something specific enough to solve the problem all together.

But that's a tangent I do not want to get off on, LOL.

I agree that the member of a legislative body--whether one of your MPs, or one of our congressmen, or a state delegate in Maryland--works for the people, because the bills (s)he introduces, or votes on, affect all of those subject to the legislative body (the whole people) not just the inhabitants of their own congressional district/legislative district/constituency.

Even so, I would never, ever (and I know you didn't say it but I will) condone proportional representation in Congress, as has the German Bundestag (Federal Diet). Half of its members are like MPs or congressmen (elected from "their" district or whatever it is called in German, like an MP or a congressman) and the other half, by PR ballots in which you choose a party list, who represent the country as a whole (unless I have grossly misunderstood the explanation given to me by...whoever the hell it was who explained it to me).

Hey, a couple of questions after watching the third "The House of Cards" series (BBC not Kevin Spacey).

What's a PPS?

Something I was wondering. In the U.S. we have primaries instead of the old convention system these days. So instead of convention delegates approving candidates for office, if you want to run for congressman (or state delegate/senator whatever) you need a bizzillion signatures on a petition for office, and that gets you on the primary ballot for the Democratic, Republican, or other parties. (Then you have to win the primary.)

Hows it work in the UK? Or Canada? (getting nominated to run for MP or something I mean.)

PPS means 'Parliamentary Private Secretary'. It's the very lowest rung of the government. In the UK almost all of the executive positions in the government are drawn from serving MPs (you get a few Lords too, but not many). A PPS is essentially just a senior aide to a minister. They don't really have any executive responsibility as such but it's the first step on the ladder. Do well there and you can get promoted to a junior ministerial job and then who knows ?

Getting selected to be an MP needs you to be selected by a constituency party to be their candidate. In most cases that means convincing a majority of the local party members who are dedicated enough to show up and vote. Some local associations have a real independent streak, but in a lot of cases there's a pathway for up-and-comers where they first get picked in some difficult seat and then get parachuted into a nice safe seat for the next election. The sons of Neal Kinnock and Jack Straw, two major names in the Labour Party, are both running in winnable seats next year, and both John Prescott and Tony Blair's sons are also sniffing round. I don't mean to single out Labour for this kind of thing, just illustrate that there's obviously the potential for favouritism. Interestingly btw, one or two seats have begun experimenting with open primaries. A couple of local Tory associations did that before the last election. Anybody could stand to be selected as Tory candidate for Torbay whether they were originally Tory members or not. The eventual winner, Sarah Wollaston, was just a local doctor with no real deep affiliation to the Tory Party at all. She's proven to be a very popular local MP though.

The crucial difference between our process and yours is that once somebody has been selected they very rarely get de-selected again. Most MPs (if they're smart) cultivate a very close relationship with their local party and tend over time to build up a big personal vote. Because of the size of most of our constituencies and the relatively small number of paid up local members, a long serving MP can be sure of having personally met just about everybody in his local party who's likely to bother to vote. If they really piss off their local party then they can be de-selected by a special vote, but this doesn't really happen very often. As such you don't tend to get the kind of insurgent pressure from below that every member of Congress has to put up with. It makes for a very different political culture, although obviously it isn't without its drawbacks.

hacker

The problem with the American constitution concerning federalism, whether the balance of power should tip more toward one of the other, is four nasty little words in the 10th Amendment "or to the People..." It leaves the whole thing open to interpretation, that it could mean precisely what you want it to mean, rather than something specific enough to solve the problem all together.

The tradition in Canada is compromise and accomodation. In part that seems to be our national character... Sorry .
In part thats because the Constitution is very difficult to amend. So solutions had to be found that were agreeable to all parties. With less ideological putiry in the politics, there is usually a solution found. Until 1982 there was no amending formula and one was never written into the constitution. As an act of the British Government , The British North america Act, changes to the Constituion before 82 had to be approved in the UK beleive it or not. Trudeau "patriated the Constituution" and formalized an amending formula to the consternation of Separtists in Quebec.
Since 82, Most amendments can be passed only if identical resolutions are adopted by the House of Commons, the Senate, and a two-thirds majority of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50% of the national population. If the amendment only affects one province then it can be done with only the provinces approval.
The challenges in the Constitution usually have to do with the fact we were a nation founded from two old nations (French and English). So language rights have always been an issue. We didn't become officially bilingual until the 60's and only one province is officially bilingual. (Meaning french and english in all government communications).Though where most have a significant minority (10%+) services are bilingual. Or in many places multilingual, just as a matter of providing better service to new Canadians
Being a confederation, and large and remote to other parts , means that often developments in one province, that turn out to be successful, are copied in the other parts. Health insurance was a major example. There is little "it can't be done here because we're different". Its more like, "Crap if the idiots in Saskatchewan can do this, why can't we?" Failures, act the other way ... (high taxation in Quebec, though some of the programs the taxation brings about are envied, like subsidized child care) .
One thing that developed over time is that the Federal government officially shares tax revenue with the provinces. There is an offficial formula that means that well heeled provinces see tax money from their citizens officially shared with the governments of other provinces, who see this go into their general revenues. Called "transfer payments". The fact that this is a very visible and well discussed feature every year (there's always some province complaining about the level of the payment) demonstrates to the citizens that they benefit from being part of the whole. (If citizens in Mississippi knew that 59% of all governemtn spending in their state came from the dozens of federal programs would that change their view of the federal governemnt?)
Every thing that Sass says about local politics is the same in Canada except (perhaps) that most parties require that the Federal leader sign the nomination papers of the local candidate. That gives him/her a veto over the nomination. And often in the past this has meant the candidate comes from the federal party without a genuine local campaign. (Parachute candidates) . Generally howwever, parties are more closely lead and MPs and MPPs (provincial) are less than wholly independent. especially if they want to prosper from the appointments that come from the leaders office...

As such you don't tend to get the kind of insurgent pressure from below that every member of Congress has to put up with. It makes for a very different political culture, although obviously it isn't without its drawbacks.

If by insurgent pressure from below you mean the actual voice of the actual constituents of a member of Congress, well, is that a bad thing? Between the voice of the Party consensus, and the voice of the congressman's actual constituents--yes, yes, I'm not taking into account the donors in this one, so be it--I would pick the latter over the former. As someone who is often at odds with both parties I would rather congressmen listen to their own constituents than the opinions of John Boener/Nancy Pelosi and a few key party men in smoke-filled rooms. I often quote John Adams: "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Despite what Ricky mentioned about the polarization of our system, I would say, yes, it's getting that way but there is still plenty of local variance in American politics (we just do not notice it via the media because they cannot report on the opinions and doings of 535 members of Congress at the same time).

As far as the independence of members of Congress--even these days--from the voice of their party, well, if you have an iPad, there is a cool app called MyCongress. Probably they have it for droid as well I'd imagine. If you look at some of the entries you can see how often that person abstains, votes with the party, the committees they're on and so forth. And of course their office location in case you want to throw flaming bags of dog poo on their doorsteps and email to send them obscene letters.

I have noticed that Senators are the more maverick-y among the two chambers. Logical: senators usually started as congressmen first. It's considered a step up to the Senate, unlike in the UK where I believe you call it "kicking them upstairs" (and of course they are elected by the voters of their states, not appointed by the president, or someone else). As they have been there longer, they have built up an independent power base of their own, and rely less and less on the Party machine. (And do not forget, local party organizations do not nominate congressmen, they are "nominated" by a petition circulated among voters directly; then they are automatically on the primary ballot.)

This is true in the case of Lisa Murkowski. She actually lost the primary to a tea-party faction candidate, but by a successful write-in campaign she won the general election anyway. It's hard to say who really runs the Republican Party these days, but despite what you may think of the polarization (which is true, and believe me, nobody here feels it worse than me as I am gay but have a few conservative to centrist views, still) of state and federal politics, it is not an absolute. Party politics still vary greatly from one state to another. Take into account the recent state GOP platform in Texas which I understand was horribly homophobic; vs. the Chairman of the GOP Central Committee in the State of Delaware, who is himself openly homosexual. (Probably why the Republican "establishment" in that state wanted the re-election of someone called Mike Castle, in lieu of the very strange woman, I forget her name, who is a tea-partier, who won the primary, thus tossing the only Republican seat in the Senate from Delaware into the hands of the Democrats). If you're a Republican in a very liberal state, there's not too much that the national party "establishment" can do to make you conservative...after all, they do want their party to win, right? Better for the party establishment to retain someone who crosses the floor quite a bit, but is still somewhat within the same party, than have someone who is in lockstep with the national party in a state or congressional district where being so will cause them to lose the election. Yes we've polarized within the last 20 years, but not enough to reverse what I just mentioned.

Murkowski, it says, votes with her own party (GOP/Republican Party) 65% of the time. That's not a very "loyal" party member. So much for party control, whoever said that. Of course, there's always the senior senator from Maryland, Barbara "Babs" Mikulski, who votes with the same (Democratic) Party 99% of the time; and the junior senator from Maryland, ditto Mikulski.

Another question: because the executive is part of the legislative in the UK and Canada, where do bills come from? Who usually introduces a bill? MPs who are members of the cabinet/Federal Ministry?

It is my understanding that very few bills come from the White House. The President is empowered, by the Constitution, to "recommend measures" for the Congress' consideration--he can put a proposed bill on the floor of the House & Senate. Where, of course, anything can happen to it after that; there is no guarantee of passage in the "same" form as he suggested it even if his party has a majority in that chamber. The vast majority of bills originate from members themselves.

Another thing: if a Parliamentary Private Secretary is the assistant to a Minister...I thought that a Principal Private Secretary (a civil servant) was the assistant to a Minister. So what does the PPS really do, as far as assisting the Minister, then?

And what about a "Junior Minister"? What do they do, run a junior Department?

I prefer it to be based on population - an MP works for all inhabitants, not just voters.

Or at least not three out of every five members of the population.

hacker

Despite what Ricky mentioned about the polarization of our system, I would say, yes, it's getting that way

you mean it could get worse? I doubt it. Here's a $4 read for you..

Political Gridlock
It’s Time for a Reboot!

http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Produc ... dlock.aspx

Ricky: thank you for suggesting another book (I already have a bunch to read now and I have ADD which makes anything a painfully slow read....) and I will get around to reading at least something you've suggested (after all, I suggested one myself). Interesting premise, tho, I must say.

And as you know from my weighing in on the thread of same-sex marriage (by the way I thank you for vehemently arguing that particular cause, I just couldn't totally support the way you did it, so please do not think I was attempting to throw you under a bus there...this was some months or so ago I think) that I am gay myself, with a few conservative to moderate views on certain issues, and where do you think that puts me? Do you really, really think, Ricky, that I am clueless as to the polarization of American politics? Especially since i have participated in them--sorry, engaged in low-level activism --at the state and local level? I may not have worked for a congressman, or slept with any of their aides--almost did once but no cigar...not sure how close I came....er...anyway--I strongly suspect it is at the federal level that experiences the most polarized and hateful politics. Again, I gave the example of the GOP chairman of DE who's gay, while the TX party platform is horrifyingly homophobic (so my gay friends tell me...I didn't bother to read it this time). See? Still variances. And THAT is why state's rights is also becoming a not-necessarily-conservative thing these days. That is also why I AM aware, despite what you might think, of how polarized things are becoming. I think perhaps you and I have different "goal posts" as to where the "danger zone" (i.e., imminent illegal seizure of power by military junta) is, precisely.

This is one reason to tip a little more balance in favor of the state governments. I cannot fathom how some of the Canadians I have met disparage states' rights in the United States when 1) Canada has much stronger [well provinces' not states'] rights, as you have informed me, and 2) they criticize how incredibly f**** our federal government is. Maybe the states' rightsers---and no, I would not have said this in or about the 1960s!!!---are right to want to take power away from the federal government?

By the way, as far as gay stuff & same-sex marriage, though there have been a couple very crucial victories in the Supreme Court in Washington, have you noticed that it's almost the exact opposite of the 1960's civil rights movement? Then, ultimate victories were being done by Congress, forget ANY state legislature doing anything back then that would protect minorities' rights the way they are today. On the other hand, with rights for same-sex marriage and other LGBT causes, it's being done AT THE STATE LEVEL by STATE LEGISLATURES---not Congress!

Why should I, as a gay man, want to give any more power to the federal government? As I mentioned above, it's "our of the frying pan and into the fire" when you take power away from the state capitals and start giving it to Washington. Hence my schpiel on the ambiguity of the 10th amendment. In the 1990s, Congress gave us the Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by Bill Clinton no less). These days, a bunch of state legislatures have, like a row of dominoes, legalized same-sex marriage and passed other pro-LGBT legislation.

I will not hold my breath and wait for Congress to do it. And that goes for a Democratic Administration and Majority in both houses, or the same being Republican, or split annoyingly down the middle.

Do you really think it's that screwed up Ricky? Well again, I never said it was not so. But the soon collapse of the United States' federal government into a pool of blood is a little...well, alarmist.

Sorry if this reply is a little disorganized; I normally at least try to take the time to properly edit posts before I post them. Otherwise it does read a bit like James Joyce (a stream of consciousness writer of the early 20th century for those of you who are unfamiliar). ADD can do that crap to you. You should read some of my papers from college, they suck.

If by insurgent pressure from below you mean the actual voice of the actual constituents of a member of Congress, well, is that a bad thing? Between the voice of the Party consensus, and the voice of the congressman's actual constituents--yes, yes, I'm not taking into account the donors in this one, so be it--I would pick the latter over the former.

No, what I mean is that they don't usually face a challenger for their seat from within their own party every electoral cycle. Sitting MPs usually go forward automatically as the nominee for the seat unless the local party makes a conscious choice to deselect them.

There are pros and cons to this of course. You're right to point out that to some extent it makes MPs more beholden to the party leadership than they are to their constituents, especially if they're in a safe seat. It can also lead to a certain complacency, with long-serving MPs coming to take their local party for granted. However, there are upsides to it as well. The most obvious is that without the constant pressure of a primary battle every 4 years there isn't such a pronounced pressure from the extremes. The insurgent pressure applied by hardcore ideologues through the primary system threatens to make America virtually ungovernable if it continues on the same trajectory. It's not really the same over here. Sure, the prevading ideology of the rank and file eventually makes itself felt in candidate selection (there hardly any non-Eurosceptics left in the Tories for example, where there used to be loads of them), but it's a much more gradual process.

It's interesting that you mentioned donors btw, even if you did immediately gloss over it. The main reason donors have so much influence in the States is because politics is such a hideously expensive business, and a huge part of that is down to the fact that every member of Congress needs to raise enormous sums of money to fight both primary and main election campaigns. Eric Cantor spent $5m on his losing primary campaign against a complete unknown, inc half a million on junk food. Now ok, that level of spending is way up at the high end of the spectrum, but to put it into perspective, the Labour Party only spent £10m on their entire 2010 election campaign nationwide. Spending on individual constituencies is usually in the tens of thousands, if that. The hyper-competitive primary system that prevails in America forces each individual politician to have to cultivate wealthy donors and devote enormous amounts of their energy to fundraising, which in turn hugely increases the political influence of the donors.

hacker

Then, ultimate victories were being done by Congress, forget ANY state legislature doing anything back then that would protect minorities' rights the way they are today. On the other hand, with rights for same-sex marriage and other LGBT causes, it's being done AT THE STATE LEVEL by STATE LEGISLATURES---not Congress!

The difference is that racial discrimination and denial of rights was institutionalized in the southern states. It took the power and authority of the federal govenrment and the Constituion to force adherence to the Constituion. Essentially it was the second part of the civil war of 100 years before. First it took force to end slavery. Second it took force to ensure that peoples rights were respected by States.

The federal system is an advntage to those fighting for marriage equality. It allows them 50 differet fronts to fight on, and as they won states they've gained a critical mass. With the death of DOMA, and the swing in popular opinion to acceptance ... marriage equality will be accepted everywhere before too long.
If you had seen debates on this board some years ago there wer plenty who said this day would never come. The startlling thing is how quickly gay rights have progressed in comparison to similar battles for racial equality and womens rights. Its as if those two issues made the third more acceptable as people saw the parallels.

This is possibly an under-appreciated benefit to the federal system actually, the ability for social change to be facilitated at a lower level and gain traction. Gay marriage would probably have happened anyway, although the pace of change would have been slower, but what really interests me atm is the way that certain American states are setting about the destruction of the consensus on drugs policy. The 'war on drugs' has long been known to have been an abject failure, but politicians have never felt free to admit it, let alone do anything about it. Then along comes Colorado with it's successful ballot proposition to legalise cannabis. Other states will surely follow suit, and other countries already are. Within another couple of electoral cycles it's likely that cannabis will be legal in most of America, and the rest of the world will jump at the chance to join in. This kind of thing could never happen in Britian, where individual localities simply lack the political power to enforce that change.