[EM] Majority Rule

[Blake Cretney]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 13:47:50 +1000
LAYTON Craig <Craig.LAYTON at add.nsw.gov.au> wrote:

> Blake Cretney wrote:
> 
> >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.

Yes.  I prefer a system where the chief executive is responsible to
the legislature than one where he is independent, and perhaps pursuing
quite different policy goals.  In practice, however, in Canada, the PM
is not responsible to parliament.  Instead, parliament is responsible
to him, as they have no practical way of removing him, but he can
trigger a new election.

> >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.

In my opinion the biggest barrier to change is as follows.  People
view a general election as a direct election for Prime Minister, who
is expected to hold the real power.  The public would fear that if the
legislature selected the PM, that people who they knew nothing about
(MP's) would be choosing the PM instead of them.  This is also a
significant public concern about PR, that the PM would be chosen by
negotiation or indirect election, rather than by them.

To sell either PR, or a PM responsible to the legislature, you have to
convince the public to view the system differently.  The PM should be
viewed as just an employee of the legislature, carrying out its
policies.  Then, they wouldn't worry so much about not electing the PM
directly.  Instead, the real power is held by the legislature, and
each voter should vote for a party that will act as they would if they
sat in the legislature.

---
Blake Cretney