>As a beginning, for a new international institution, I suggest
>
> A three chamber organization:
>
> * One chamber based on population, like the US
> House of Representatives,
On 31 Jan 2004, Bryon Daly asked
Are you proposing that each nation would send x number of
representatives, or have a single rep, who holds x number of
votes?
Send x number of representatives, the way European states send
multiple representatives to the European parliament.
If the size of the `House' is 320 representatives, each single
representative district will represent a population of 20 million
people (of whom a smaller portion will be adults who are potential
voters).
I'm concerned that this would give an extremely populous nation
like China (1/4 of the world's pop?) excessive influence ...
You are right, this is what the less populated worry about.
Some possible ways to mitigate this:
- Assign votes based on population on a log-type curve, so they
don't become so out of proportion.
I don't think this, or any other scaling factor, is possible, for two
reasons:
* People on the planet as a whole now favor the `one person, one
vote' ideal that democrats have pushed for over a century. This
is a very strong meme.
* The populous countries will stymie any attempt to reduce the
influence of their population.
A critical issue is how representatives are elected:
* Must potential candidates be passed by a board of guardians, as in
Iran? Or many any one qualified to vote run?
* Is an election run like that in many continental European states,
in which a voter choses a list? Or does the candidate who gains a
plurality of votes win as in many US elections?
(I myself think that half the representatives should be elected via a
plurality of votes and half be elected as the top four among a larger
group, in an election that melds together four of the single
representative districts. The reason is that `at large'
representatives often represent minorities better.)
Regarding the `historical' or `US Senate' like proposal, I pointed out
that
> (Some contemporary countries are very small.
> Consequently, the disproportion in power between large
> ones and small nation-states is even greater than it
> was in the 1780s between large and small US states. ...
Bryon Daly asked
Do you mean the countries would have to share a single vote or
representative?
Yes. (Or share two representatives.)
Fifty countries have populations larger than 20 million. The
other hundred odd countries recognized by the UN have smaller
populations. Big countries, whether or not rich, are not going accept
that Austria, population 8 million, and Bulgaria, also population 8
million, have the same vote as China, population 1250 million.
According to this proposal, Austria, Denmark, Finland, and Norway
should combine.
(Actually, the populations of Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark
add up to 23.8 million and may make a better grouping.)
[Population figures from The Economist `Pocket World in Figures',
2002 edition]
I agree that the US wouldn't join an organization it lacks a veto
in. I'm not sure how it could ever be confident the organization
would not ever undertake actions damaging to the US, given my
concerns above about nations acting in self-interest.
The reason to join is because the benefits are seen to outweigh the
damages. The original 13 states of the US joined together to produce
a Federal system even though they could see dangers to them of
joining.
Getting back to your original point about bribery and appearances,
I'm not sure if a new organization or any of these proposed
changes would make any difference as far as that goes. ... no
matter how bribery-proof the UN's (or a future replacement's) reps
are, it doesn't matter a bit, if Saddam (or some future bad-guy)
was/is able to directly buy influence in, for example, the French
and Russian governments.
Bribery becomes more expensive and more difficult to keep secret as
the number of delegates in a chamber increases. Yes, it is possible.
But the idea is to transform bribes to a few into political
contributions to many. In practial terms, that is what progress in
government means. When political contributions go to many, then the
issues become public, more or less.
For example, in the US in the 1930s, Roosevelt was supported, among
others, by international bankers who did not mind that he favored
unions, since their costs were not much influenced by unionized wage
rates. On the other hand, Roosevelt's opponents were supported by
textile manufacturers, whose costs were heavily influenced by wage
rates. The political debate over unions was not secret among bankers,
textile manufacturers, and a few bribable politicians, but was a
debate between parties, over how to organize society.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
