JamesHackerMP

I take it that in an open party list you rank the candidates on the list, as well as choosing that list?

For your sake, I hope you haven't blocked me, because you need an English lesson, here. Anti means against. Phobia means "fear of". Islamophobia does, in fact, have a negative connotation against people who are afraid of Muslims, just as much as anti does. There's little difference in their usage. You could call an Islamophobe an anti-muslim, and it will mean precisely the same thing. It's up to you.

Wow. how long does it take to form a coalition after an election, usually?

As I said, math sux. I had to retake statistics. And college algebra. God knows how I got through high school math classes with my sanity intact. So I guess you have an MP for every 27,500 citizens then, eh? That's actually not bad. How big do you think it should be? How many citizens ought to be represented by one MP? Are they single-member districts in Finland or do you use some other method of election?

I guess with the cube root, our lower house should be 3,200 members? That would make approximately 100,000 constituents to one congressman. Unless, again, I'm doing that wrong. I hate math.

Wow. As far as the assemblies of our territories, American Samoa has a 21 member of the House of Representatives and 18 in the Senate (together called the Fono). The "senators" are actually chosen by the tribal chiefs of the various islands comprising American Samoa, whereas the representatives are chosen democratically. Guam is also unicameral, with 15 members (senators) including the Speaker and deputy Speaker. All are elected at large, somehow. In the US Virgin Islands, it's also 15 senators, unicameral. The Northern Mariana Islands legislature has 9 senators and 20 representatives (bicameral). Puerto Rico's is much bigger, with 30 senators and 51 representatives, but it's not as sparsely populated as the other four territories (those are the five territories that are organized or populated enough to get non-voting delegates in Congress). What the ratios are, I have no idea. I imagine that Samoa does its business in Samoan (why it's named the "Fono" in Samoan language so I'm assuming here), and Puerto Rico probably does its business in Spanish. As far as the Northern Marianas or our Virgin Islands, I would imagine English for the latter, but no clue about the Marianas. And you abolished the upper houses in provincial legislatures years ago, right?

It's likely the National People's Congress is not really a legislative body but a rubber-stamp to make it look good. The USSR had a Congress of People's Deputies of 2,250 members. But there was a smaller, bicameral Supreme Soviet that actually passed laws. This was toward the end, under Glasnost and Perestroika. I imagine in China, the real "lawmakers" are the Central Committee or Politburo. Maryland has a population comparable to Finland (5,773,552 in 2010). The state legislature (General Assembly) is bicameral. Maryland is divided (or gerrymandered) into 47 legislative districts each of which elects one senator. The electoral quotient for the state Senate is 122,813. As for the lower house, the House of Delegates, I won't bother to explain, it's quite complicated. And stupid. I think our smallest state legislature is the Nebraska Legislature which contains about 50 "senators" (they actually abolished the House of Representatives in 1934, leaving them with the smaller state Senate.) They divide Nebraska into 25 legislative districts with 2 senators, each having 73,054 residents. Alaska has a 60-member state legislature, containing 20 state senators and 40 state representatives, with each representative having probably 17,756 constituents; each senator having 35,512 constituents. Bicameral state legislatures are so pointless these days. Is Finland's parliament bicameral?

Probably you are correct, what with the change from 308 to 338 MPs in the election of 2015. It was probably more disproportionate in 2012. Anywho, I was just wondering about the calculations. I think the "electoral quotient" is not the same thing as the "average" constituents per riding. It seems that the same thing could have been roughly achieved without all the statistical nonsense. when i read the explanation in Wikipedia I went cross-eyed. But my other question, why would a geographically large riding be a bad thing? In the US we just give the congressmen enough staff allowances to accommodate having a big territory (spread out their regional offices).

Unless I have screwed up the math (perfectly possible even using a calculator), the average residents per riding in the provinces ought to be 102,601. (provincial population divided by 335 seats in the Commons. But then you have a round up to the nearest MP to keep PEI from having one, lonely MP to cover it, so you get 340 seats.) The following would be the change from the current distribution to a hypothetical "one person one vote" distribution. [change from current to hypothetical is in ( ) ] Alberta 37 (+3) B.C. 42 (-3) Manitoba 13 (-1) N.B. 8 (-2) N & L 5 (-2) N.S. 10 (-1) Ontario 131 (+10) P.E.I. 2 (-2) Quebec 78 (no change) Saskatchewan 11 (no change) The biggest change would be add 10 MPs for Ontario. They've already added 15 MPs to Ontario at the last election. So maybe it's not that dissimilar after all? This is, of course, unless I screwed up the math, as I said. I admit, instead of using an exact electoral quotient I've just used the a national average).

Actually, you should make that 60k, not 80k from the page you showed me. Why is a physically large riding undesirable? Also, scroll down to the see the table, which shows the avg number of constituents per MP in each province, which I think tells a different story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Canada

You should see Maryland. It's widely considered to be the most gerrymandered state of the Union. In fact, they mentioned it in a book on the logic of political survival. The Maryland constitution says that districts must be "compact in form" and "respect natural boundaries." However, it would seem that our leaders in this state haven't bothered to read their own constitution. Or they're just ignoring it. (Probably the latter, but it is 103 pages, so maybe a combination of both.) I read that Canada was voted one of the most democratic nations on Earth. I can understand that from the point of view of your lack of gerrymandered districts, but then there is the matter of your disparity between provinces in the electoral districts. Kinda messed up. But every democracy does, of course, have its flaws, no? I cannot imagine your politicians from less populous provinces ever, ever consenting to make the House of Commons truly democratic, in the sense of each province's MPs having the same (as possible) number of constituents. (not to mention somehow revolutionizing the role and/or construction of the upper house.)

There was a discussion a while ago in which I poo-pooed the idea of proportional representation in democracies. Not wishing to revisit the issue, I can now see that there is some merit to the idea. I haven't changed my mind, but I can see why some people want it. Why this 178-degree turn in thinking? I've gathered more information on the apportionment of MPs in Parliament between the ten provinces and three territories (particularly the provinces, since the territories just have one MP each). And I am thoroughly confused. I can almost see why someone would be tempted to replace such a cluster**** of electoral mathematics with something more straightforward. I understand the following at least. A province is entitled to at least as many MPs as it has senators, and also at least as many MPs as it had in 1985 (Senatorial and Grandfather clauses, respectively). The provincial-only population (e.g., not including the 111,663 residents of the territories) of 34,371,116 is divided by 279 to get the National Electoral Quotient of 111,166 (as per the most recent decennial census). Why 279? is that the number of MPs in 1985? (i.e., fitting the Grandfather Clause?) Also: do you add together the numbers from the two clauses (senatorial and grandfather) to get the minimum number of seats to which the province is entitled? or is it whichever number is bigger? As Austin Powers said when discussing time travel, "Oh dear, I've gone cross-eyed." Can one of my neighbors to the north clear up for me what Wikipedia hasn't managed to?

Quite right, most likely! I'm sure it does!

Wow.

Probably because we are more concerned with individual liberty, than with majority rule. Majority rule is not a guarantee of individual liberty. Lack thereof can often infringe upon individual liberty, but there's still such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. The Senate mitigates that possibility to some extent (the US Senate).

You highlighted "shall not be questioned in any other place." That's a pretty typical privilege for legislators around the world. It's called parliamentary privilege. Without it you could have the President, or some other executive authority in the US government, arresting senators and representatives for what they said on the floor.

Actually, it's only a simple majority, not 2/3, to confirm appointments. That has nothing to do with President Trump. The 2/3 is specifically with treaties. It has always been that way. As far as the first part you quoted from the constitution of 1787, which part of that do you believe to be problematic? And how would you change it?

good one. But really, there's got to be a lot that Canadians find crazy about the American constitution. Some of you have said so!

Yes I agree. But you said it wasn't equitable in the US to do the same thing, right?

Muskets are irrelevant. Resistance is futile.

Any suggestions for a new American constitution to replace the Constitution of 1787 (as amended)? Input desired. Two caveats however (you might not listen, but please please please try anyway!) 1. it must remain a presidential republic. (no prime ministers, no kings, etc.) 2. the bills of rights--and its interpretations by jurists--can't be changed, here. Therefore, please for he love of all that is holy, no second amendment stuff.

The legal position is that a "high crime or misdemeanor" means whatever the House of Representatives says it means. Quite literally that's the present constitutional interpretation.

also "Bored of the Rings" by Harvard Lampoon. Hilarious spoof of Tolkien's the Lord of the Rings.

conclave, by Robert Harris. it's pretty neat so far. The Pope dies and, naturally, they have to elect a new one. Lots of intrigue and stuff. I tried posting the cover image but for some reason it wouldn't let me.

agreed. Canadians take too much pride in their non-Americanness to ever want to merge with the USA.