Classical Greece was not a country in our modern sense, a place in which all Greeks lived within a single state with a single government. Instead, Greece was composed of several hundred independent cities, each with its surrounding countryside. Unlike the United States, France, Japan, and other modern countries, the so-called nation-states or national states that have largely dominated the modern world, the sovereign states of Greece were city-states.
Would that be a wrong way for them to exercise their right? The Senate is now elected in the same manner as the House, but for a longer term and by state rather than district.
I agree with everyone who is upset that a handful of small states can effectively prevent measures that appeal to much greater population represented in a half-dozen large states, but I wonder what would be a sensible but different basis for representation — if, that is, we are to have a Senate at all.
Assuming we insist on retaining a Senate, the only practicable suggestion I have seen that makes sense to me is to keep state representation, but to have a significant number ?
I have seen different proposals for how to set up the at-large vote, like weighted or cumulative voting or the Hare system, whatever that isbut I leave that to experts on that sort of thing.
I suspect the candidates with a chance of winning would be people of national reputation not necessarily tied to any geographic area, which would probably favor large states. And I suspect that few people would mount a national campaign for essentially 1 vote out of in the Senate, so we would probably have a more-or-less self-selected elite, a sort on non-hereditary House of Lords.
Of coarse you mean, excepting Social Security, Medicare, Affirmative Action, or any other law that transfers power or resources from one group to pay a cost or complete a contract entered into by their ancestors.
Another option would be to combine states which lack sufficient population for a Senator on their own. CA would have 12 Senators. What makes the US upper chamber special is more its power compared to the lower chamber than its composition. And was it really the equal number of Senators per state that made it difficult to pass civil rights legislation?
As far as I kind see it was the filibuster that was the largest obstacle, not the composition of the Senate. After all, the Democrats have a majority in the Senate and the Republicans in the House of Representatives.
Of coarse a portion of the debate on the structure of the government was over slavery. The slave states wanted to count slaves for the purposes of state voting power but wanted to treat them like cattle for everything else. Established small states where lobbing for the New Jersey Plan to the end.
In order for the creation of the Senate to be driven by the slavery issue, you would have to demonstrate how the plight of the slaves was a significant and popular political concern for the population of the small states.
It seems far more reasonable to assume that the small states where focused on keeping as much power for themselves. O, and Hamilton was wrong. Power and Liberty are often tied together. Without power, an individuals liberty is at the mercy of the good conscious of those with power.
Today we are living with the consequences of those choices.
Or, one might think that Social Security and Medicare are actually fair and sensible policies. In fact come to think of it — that is what their defenders are saying. For a federation, the senate an ordinary institution.
Otherwise it gets messy. So the presence of a completely disproportionate delegation in the senate from a small liberal state is actually a big win. The relationship between the House and the Senate—the requirement that they both come to agreement—also complicates the issue.
But the bottom line is that it seems to me to be pretty clear that even though the Senate is far from one-person-one-vote, it actually represents a more accurate cross-section of the population than does the House. I think it would be worth considering the possibility that weirdos are a valuable part of any political system.
How do you figure the Senate represents a more accurate cross-section of the population than the House? The Democrats took the Senate as well.
At least by that rough measure, the Senate reflects the popular vote more closely than the House does, even though the popular vote numbers we talking about are for the House, not the Senate. Shortly after a vote on that question, a vote was entered on the question of whether representation in the Senate ought be on a one vote per state basis.
And on that question, the vote was: The record itself is here: This seems to me strong evidence that certain states, by virtue of large and expanding populations, favored proportional representation in both houses; and that smaller states opposed.
Note the opposition of the southern states who, I believe, expected growing population and perhaps territory as well to a by-state representation in the Senate, and their favor of proportional representation.Comparative Politics Final.
GDP. Used to measure democracy in a country 2 components are government offices and contestation It is dichotomous, meaning countries are classified as either dictatorships or democracies.
No in between Dahls essential conditions for democracy. - According to Alexis De Tocqueville (), democracy allows for equal rights and liberty within a country, through several means: compulsory primary education, freedom of speech through townships, and the establishment of a jury.
India is the biggest and one of the most important democratic country on earth. Indian democracy today is as old as sixty-two years and it has survived despite many countries have yielded to dictatorship and military rule. Why is democracy important in India? Update Cancel. ad by LendingHome.
The laws are framed according to democratic. The Relationship between Government and Civil Society in South Africa by\ and AIDS ravage the country. According to Statistics South Africa, the overall unemployment rate rose from % in to % in 5 Habermas, recently topped India as the country .
The Framers created a representative democracy because they were fearful of direct democracy. Dahl says this is a result of underestimating the ability of the American people as a whole to guide the country on a stable, free-market path that would have respected the property rights of land owners.
8 most essential conditions necessary for the success of democracy. Like any other form of government democracy has also a few deficiencies and drawbacks. Some philosophers propose greater democracy to correct the ills of the democracy.