On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM, James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is not (or should not be) a question of whether or not there is a > consensus at any particular geographical level of community. > The defining factors for "the geographical community" should be the level at > which the electors can engage with the particular issue > and the level at which something can actually be done. In all cases the > objective should be to ensure that the various "assemblies" > elected to deal with the issues are properly representative of those they are > elected to serve. For city-wide issues, the > "geographical community" is the whole city. For issues affecting only my > local school, the "geographical community" is the area of > the city served by that school - but if there are no fixed geographies > associated with the various schools in the city, the > appropriate community for the school board is the families whose children > attend the local school.
This is called subsidiarity. It is (in theory) the guiding principle when deciding if the EU as a whole or the individual members should handle an issue. It is a good idea. However, who gets to decide what is the correct level. Often, it is the larger assembly that gets to decide if power should be delegated to a smaller area. In the US, the federal government decides to a certain extent what power the States should have. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
