<HTML><BODY>
<div> From: abd@lomaxdesign.com<br>

> At 06:00 AM 3/5/2007, <span class="correction" id="">Jobst</span> <span class="correction" id="">Heitzig</span> wrote:<br>

> >Do you mean to say that the will of a consistent faction of 49% of the<br>

> >electorate, who will never get their way under a <span class="correction" id="">majoritarian</span> system,<br>

> >is "noise"??<br>

><br>

> No. But that condition is essentially impossible. There is *never* a<br>

> consistent faction of that size in a <span class="correction" id="">majoritarian</span> democracy, indeed,<br>

> I think I wrote, there is no faction of *any* size of which this is<br>

> true, since the vast majority of choices made in real societies enjoy<br>

> almost total consensus.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

It happened in Northern Ireland.  The nationalist faction is  around<br>

45% of the population.  They want <span class="correction" id="">NI</span> to be part of the Republic. The<br>

other faction is the <span class="correction" id="">unionist</span> faction.  They wanted to remain part<br>

of the UK and represented around 55% of the population.<br>

                                                                                                                                                           
<br>

In fact, the original split of the island into <span class="correction" id="">NI</span> and the Free State (as<br>

the Republic was then), was designed to give the <span class="correction" id="">unionists</span> as much <br>

territory as possible, while still giving them a majority.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

This was the single most important issue in every election, and the<br>

<span class="correction" id="">unionists</span> won every time.  The end result was that the UK government<br>

decided to administer  <span class="correction" id="">NI</span> directly, due to civil disorder issues.  The<br>

<span class="correction" id="">unionists</span> went from having a <span class="correction" id="">permenent</span> majority to being a relatively <br>

small party in the UK parliament.  This highlights the problems with <br>

ignoring a large segment of the population.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

The peace process is an attempt to restore local government in <span class="correction" id="">NI</span>.<br>

The rules that they intend to use are not rule by majority. <br>

They use PR to elect the assembly.  Each candidate must say if they<br>

are a nationalist, a <span class="correction" id="">unionist</span> or neither.  No bill can be passed by<br>

the assembly unless it majority support from both the nationalists<br>

and the <span class="correction" id="">unionists</span> (and probably overall majority support).  This is<br>

obviously subject to abuse.  Once, some of the independents <span class="correction" id="">redesignated</span><br>

themselves as <span class="correction" id="">unionists</span> so that a bill could be passed.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

The executive is headed by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister.<br>

The larger faction picks the First Minister and the smaller faction<br>

picks the Deputy First Minister.  (I am not sure how non-aligned<br>

members are involved, perhaps they are ignored).<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

The ministries are then shared using the <span class="correction" id="">d'Hondt</span> system.  This gives<br>

larger parties an advantage, due to the bias in <span class="correction" id="">d'Hondt</span>, but<br>

also because they get first choice, so can get the better/more<br>

powerful ministries.  However, it means that executive power is<br>

shared between the two factions in proportion to their number.<br>

<br>

I think their solution is also problematic due to <span class="correction" id="">institutionalising</span><br>

the <span class="correction" id="">factional</span> divide.  A better solution would be to pick the First<br>

and Deputy First Minister by <span class="correction" id="">PR-STV</span> (or maybe sequential approval).<br>

<br>

The assembly could then by majority vote make one of the 2  winners<br>

the First Minister and other the Deputy.  If both of them had veto<br>

rights for bills, then each faction would effectively have veto rights<br>

without having to specifically split the assembly between factions.<br>
</div>

<div> <br>

<br>

</div>

<div style="clear: both;"><span class="correction" id="">Raphfrk</span><br>
--------------------<br>
Interesting site<br>
"what if anyone could modify the laws"<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">www</span>.<span class="correction" id="">wikocracy</span>.com</div>

<div> </div>
 <br>
<br>

<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_20dd9b15-3493-4d12-a460-8a83f520325c -->


<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
<a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F" target="_blank"><b>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail</b></a> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.<br />
</div>

</BODY></HTML>