[EM] Majority Rule

[LAYTON Craig]

Blake Cretney wrote:

>I'm not sure I follow you.  If it's just a regulation passed by
>parliament, it can be amended by parliament.  You seem to view normal
>laws as being harder to change than the constitution.

No, I just mean that there are a number of different things underpinning the
system, so you can't remove any one and expect a new type of representative
democracy.  The convention bit is probably the most important (see below).

>I think the premise of the Westminster system is that if the house
>votes against cabinet, a disaster has occurred.  Chaos reigns, and it
>is necessary to have a new election to straighten the mess out.  I
>don't agree with that assessment, however.  There doesn't seem to be
>any chaos in the US as a result of the house leaders being defeated. 
>There is gridlock as a result of having 3 bodies that need to agree,
>but that's a different issue.

It is interesting that, although the US system seems more stable, these
types of gridlock happen more often and/or are more serious.  I'm not sure
it is a different issue - the reason that this happens in the US is that
policy and legislation originate from a number of different sources, all of
which compete and disagree.

>The Westminster system also makes it rather difficult to select and
>maintain a cabinet.  In theory, a cabinet is only formed by the
>consent of a majority of the house.  But as we all know, in any
>election, a majority won't necessarily favour any one candidate, let
>alone a particular combination of candidates in a cabinet.  So, rather
>than requiring majority consent, cabinet members should just be chosen
>by elections in the parliament.

Theoretically, every Minister has the support of the majority of the house.
Dismantling party solidarity, which usually extends to coalitions as well,
is probably the biggest barrier to change.

Craig