[EM] PR and Second Chambers. Australian example

[Anthony Duff]

> > I agree that PR would have single-party majorities
> less often than
> > FPTP, but not to the extent
> > that would make me comfortable.  I'm thinking
> especially of closed-list
> > PR, but my suspicion is
> > that party strength would not be much reduced by
> STV if the system is
> > parliamentary.  I would be
> > very interested to see the results of STV where
> the chamber does not
> > choose the executive.
> 
> Examples would be the Senate of the Republic of
> Ireland and the Senate of the
> Australian Federal Parliament.  But neither of these
> is the 'principal' chamber of
> those Parliaments.


What is a "principle" chamber?  The Australian upper
and lower houses have equal powers.  
The lower house is entirely composed of single member
electorates.  The upper house is mostly elected with
six seats per state per election.
The lower house serves to rubber stamp government
legistlation.  The upper house alone excercises real
debate, with real votes, bills defeated, amendments
passed.

It is not correct to say that party strength is
reduced in the upper house, except that there is no
single party capable of dictating to the house.


http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile
- Check & compose your email via SMS on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile.