Display:
I am just taking, from the US model, the Congress and Senate.

Never the dependency on private money for politics.

  1. The dependenccy on private money for politics, and the general bad state, arguably has stuctural reasons, too.

  2. As Migeru noted, there are other federal models around.

  3. Personally, I don't see much sense in a diretly elected Senate, when there are governments already. Either way, I would like to see the power of the body representing the federated territorial units reduced relative to the body representing all citizens of the federation.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 11:36:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, an unelected second-reading chamber helps protect the State from the influence of money. Case in point: if the House of Lords votes down 42-day detention it will be in part because Brown can't threaten the Lords with a snap election where they'd lose their seats, or engage in horse-trading on individual constituency demands.

So I am convinced that having two directly elected chambers is a waste. Spain's Senate definitely is useless as configured and I would much rather it be replaced with the Conference of Presidents.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 11:40:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I missed one line here: ... but I am not convinced that a unelected second chamber is a bad idea

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 11:55:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series