[EM] PR and Second Chambers. Australian example

[James Gilmour]

> > > 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
> legislation.  The upper house alone exercises 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.

Thanks for this correction and clarification.  From your description it is clear
that the Australian model is better than most.

James