It is not possible to discuss the effects of elections and
legislative/executive organisation without some analysis of the realities
of political behaviour- after all, there's no such thing as the perfect
electoral system etc. for all situations, so we need to choose election
methods etc. with the situation in mind.
I'll say something with which I hope Tom Round will chime- assemblies
should never be run by autocracy. Queensland during the Bjelke-Petersen
years had no effective opposition, not just because the opposition was in
disorder, but also because the standing orders of parliament were rigged
against any input from the opposition. When Joh B-P was finally toppled,
the parliament began a series of reforms which included- extensive
committees (which are established by an Act, last I heard), question time,
and a review of standing orders to lessen the impact of gagging and
guillotining (spelling's awful, I know). The important fact is that these
were all initiatives of successive governments and are based more or less
on their good will and on public opinion (the essential ingredient?).
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> BUT CAN WE GET MORE DISCUSSION OF WHAT IS WRONG
> with giving legislatures freedom to structure themselves however they will?
> Meaning however some largest organized plurality wishes to do it?
>
> That was the point of my original message.
> I don't want to get sidetracked.
>
> Lloyd Anderson
> Ecological Linguistics
PS what in the funk is ecological linguistics?
