[EM] Why bicameralism ?

[Stephane Rouillon]

Sorry, I had to learn more about bicameralism before answering...

No indirect method is not good in my eye because it
lowers imputability.

The way I see the problem is when governments have to decide where
to put money in order to develop their territory (country, state,
municipality, ...).
When one needs to take the best decision, there should be no bias
to its judgement. This is why the justice principle states "one cannot be
judge and party". This is what I would want for a government to take the
"best" decisions. It does not mean to destroy any geographical link.
It only leads to use proper links. A specific link for entities who have
demands
and adress request to the government (we need a bridge, or an hospital here
and there),
and another link to the whole entity from which deciders get the money they
manage.

So why bicameralism? If every sub-governement can ask its upper level for
requests,
why would we need a more complex system? People adress their request to their
municipality, who ask their province or state when needed, who ask the federal
level
when needed.  The upper level should only have judges, not demanders, to
manage
common good (for public interest)...

If every level uses non-geographical districts to elect their representatives
(SPPA),
their representatives will be able to act as a judge when dispatching money to

their electors, and as a well-founded demander when asking the upper-level in
the name of all their community.

Steph

Brian Olson a écrit :

> On Sep 1, 2004, at 6:18 AM, Stephane Rouillon wrote:
>
> > Towns, cities and every geographical organisation already have
> > representatives
> > at a local level:
> > mayors and city councils.
>
> Different scope of issues ...
>
> > Let them do the work, if not by themself by electing
> > representatives
> > to go defend the town interests in front of other decisional stands.
>
> It used to be that state legislators elected the 2 state senators to
> the US congress. We moved away from that to direct election of
> senators. Was that a mistake? Was the indirect method better? (The last
> 150 years have also moved us closer to direct election of the
> President.)
>
> > Stop internal behind-the-scene
> > deals and start an open and neutral decisional process that would
> > encourage
> > politicians to take decisions that benefit the most to get reelected.
>
> You're going to have to justify that more. I'm not sure why one system
> or another minimizes "behind-the-scene deals". As far as I can tell,
> the best fix is a responsive participatory democracy where people at
> whatever level (voter, representative) are paying some attention to
> what goes on in the parts they have a vote over and they vote the bums
> out as needed.
>
> Brian Olson
> http://bolson.org/
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info