ew, i know. but still - the whole point of the westminster system is to represent a broad populace - so if this gets more attention for Indigenous issues, then it's ok right?
The Westminster system does the opposite - it encourages a very middle-of-the-road representation of the populace. It often results in the worst form of majority-rule (i.e., a majority that actually doesn't have the numbers to make up a strict majority). But Australia has a form of PR or a list system as well as ridings, doesn't it?
was a bit surprised TBH, every country has a past it would like to brush under the carpet but no indigenous representation until now is shocking, it was 1987 before we had a black m.p. we did have an Indian m.p. in 1892 though.
sadly we still have the bnp.
Just looked it up (had no idea before reading this) and Canada's first native MP was elected in 1968 (same year as the first black MP), and first native Senator was appointed in 1958.
NZ is perhaps not the best of all examples on how to treat your indigenous people but they surely did a hell of job at integrating them in their political system.
@
The Westminster system does the opposite - it encourages a very middle-of-the-road representation of the populace. It often results in the worst form of majority-rule (i.e., a majority that actually doesn't have the numbers to make up a strict majority). But Australia has a form of PR or a list system as well as ridings, doesn't it?
Just looked it up (had no idea before reading this) and Canada's first native MP was elected in 1968 (same year as the first black MP), and first native Senator was appointed in 1958.
Unfortunately Canada was still royally fucking up the native population at that time with forced integration through "residential schools" ([ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system[/ame]).
+1