5 ms·

Not the only way: The Norwegian system is such that regions are compensated for their geography - rural areas with less direct access to government have disprop

Not the only way: The Norwegian system is such that regions are compensated for their geography - rural areas with less direct access to government have disproportionately more representatives. The EU also works quite well for small nations.

jiggy2011 12y ago
I fear that the EU would seek to usurp a UK parliament that presided over a collection of small states and want each state to go direct to Brussels where they would have a marginal voice due to their small size.
- vidarh 12y ago
  On what basis do you fear that? The EU already have several federations as member states: Germany, Austria and Belgium.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    The more powers you devolve the more risks you have. How do you deal with a situation where the EU and Welsh parliaments agree on a policy but it is blocked by the federal UK gov? If I was a cynic I might suspect that the EU would look for ways to do this on purpose.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      Wales already have the Welsh Assembly, yet the EU does not seem to have tried this. I think you'd find that on the contrary a lot of EU states are terrified of any steps that would legitimise more demands for devolution because they have their own independence movements to deal with. And if anything, if the UK vote in important EU organs were split, it'd greatly increase UK influence on many matters in all the situations where interests are aligned, because most EU organs does not have representation proportional to population size, and many have requirements for super-majorities or even unanimous decisions on many things. That too would make many of the other large EU countries push back against any attempts to bypass a federal government.
      - jiggy2011 12y ago
        I don't necessarily mean the states becoming EU members in their own right, but rather the EU using them as tools to pressure UK gov into making certain decisions. With more referendums becoming an increasing threat to Westminster, thus weakening it.
vidarh 12y ago
It does not compensate all that much. It's admittedly been quite a few years since I lived in Norway so I haven't kept up with the numbers, but last I checked it, it took about 12,000 votes to win a seat in Finnmark, the lowest nationwide at that point vs. about 19,000 votes to win a seat in Oslo (the highest). Currently Finnmark has 5 seats and Oslo 17. That gave Finnmark an over-representation of 2 or so. [for those interested, the weighting is done by assigning 1 point per person in a region, and 1.8 points per square kilometer of area and using that to redistribute the seats in parliament across the regions, and is adjusted every 8 years; the 1.8 is/was tweaked to fit political realities at the time - I don't think there's any deeper thinking behind that specific factor]
tptacek 12y ago
That's what we do in the US. It's not a great system.
- learnstats2 12y ago
  The US is very similar to the Westminster system and has the same major underlying problem: with no attempt towards proportionality, very few people end up with their first choice of representation. Norway's electoral system, based on proportionality first, has a very good reputation. Indeed, it scores highest (9.93/10) in the Democracy Index 2012 compared to UK in 16th (8.21/10) and USA in 21st (8.11/10)
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The US is very similar to the Westminster system and has the same major underlying problem: with no attempt towards proportionality, very few people end up with their first choice of representation. Actually, I'd say the bigger problem is that with no attempt towards proportionality, very many people end up with only their last choice of representation in at least some bodies of government -- that is, they are represented, in at least one body of government and possibly at all levels of government, exclusively by people who they view (and who view them) as enemies.
    - learnstats2 12y ago
      Agreed. And many people have to vote tactically for the lesser of two evils, completely obscuring the true scale of the problem (which is nonetheless still very evident).

jiggy2011 12y ago

I fear that the EU would seek to usurp a UK parliament that presided over a collection of small states and want each state to go direct to Brussels where they would have a marginal voice due to their small size.

vidarh 12y ago
On what basis do you fear that? The EU already have several federations as member states: Germany, Austria and Belgium.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  The more powers you devolve the more risks you have. How do you deal with a situation where the EU and Welsh parliaments agree on a policy but it is blocked by the federal UK gov? If I was a cynic I might suspect that the EU would look for ways to do this on purpose.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    Wales already have the Welsh Assembly, yet the EU does not seem to have tried this. I think you'd find that on the contrary a lot of EU states are terrified of any steps that would legitimise more demands for devolution because they have their own independence movements to deal with. And if anything, if the UK vote in important EU organs were split, it'd greatly increase UK influence on many matters in all the situations where interests are aligned, because most EU organs does not have representation proportional to population size, and many have requirements for super-majorities or even unanimous decisions on many things. That too would make many of the other large EU countries push back against any attempts to bypass a federal government.
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      I don't necessarily mean the states becoming EU members in their own right, but rather the EU using them as tools to pressure UK gov into making certain decisions. With more referendums becoming an increasing threat to Westminster, thus weakening it.

vidarh 12y ago

It does not compensate all that much. It's admittedly been quite a few years since I lived in Norway so I haven't kept up with the numbers, but last I checked it, it took about 12,000 votes to win a seat in Finnmark, the lowest nationwide at that point vs. about 19,000 votes to win a seat in Oslo (the highest). Currently Finnmark has 5 seats and Oslo 17. That gave Finnmark an over-representation of 2 or so. [for those interested, the weighting is done by assigning 1 point per person in a region, and 1.8 points per square kilometer of area and using that to redistribute the seats in parliament across the regions, and is adjusted every 8 years; the 1.8 is/was tweaked to fit political realities at the time - I don't think there's any deeper thinking behind that specific factor]

tptacek 12y ago

That's what we do in the US. It's not a great system.

learnstats2 12y ago
The US is very similar to the Westminster system and has the same major underlying problem: with no attempt towards proportionality, very few people end up with their first choice of representation. Norway's electoral system, based on proportionality first, has a very good reputation. Indeed, it scores highest (9.93/10) in the Democracy Index 2012 compared to UK in 16th (8.21/10) and USA in 21st (8.11/10)
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The US is very similar to the Westminster system and has the same major underlying problem: with no attempt towards proportionality, very few people end up with their first choice of representation. Actually, I'd say the bigger problem is that with no attempt towards proportionality, very many people end up with only their last choice of representation in at least some bodies of government -- that is, they are represented, in at least one body of government and possibly at all levels of government, exclusively by people who they view (and who view them) as enemies.
  - learnstats2 12y ago
    Agreed. And many people have to vote tactically for the lesser of two evils, completely obscuring the true scale of the problem (which is nonetheless still very evident).