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?
+1
Of course, what it is supposed to give effect to is often markedly disparate from the resulting political complexion. But my point was, with more varied electorate representatives, the closer we get to the ideal form of governance. (which admittedly I don't know what form this should take)
I see your point about the failures of plurality in both houses, but I'm not sure a 'first past the post' system works to any greater effect anyway. I think Canada has a similar system of preferentially elected MPs and Senators, right? But in anycase, regardless of how they are voted in, I guess I was just saying that ideally a Westminster system is supposed to be representative of everyone, and if there is greater variation in the complexion of both houses (including women, indigenous, immigrant, gay, transgender, muslim, etc etc etc) then that seems better than having a corporation of white, middle class, men.
I don't know what you mean by list system or PR... being elected as the representative for a particular federal electorate (riding - stupid name) means you have a seat in the lower house in the Federal Parliament.
I'm pretty unschooled in all of this, it certainly is interesting, but I am fairly disillusioned with contemporary government anyway.
Politics, being political, just seem so insincere; and boringly, the agency of people figure far too greatly for my liking. I'm more interested in bureaucracy and governmentality, because then you can avoid talking about people altogether !
@nny
Of course, what it is supposed to give effect to is often markedly disparate from the resulting political complexion. But my point was, with more varied electorate representatives, the closer we get to the ideal form of governance. (which admittedly I don't know what form this should take)
I see your point about the failures of plurality in both houses, but I'm not sure a 'first past the post' system works to any greater effect anyway. I think Canada has a similar system of preferentially elected MPs and Senators, right? But in anycase, regardless of how they are voted in, I guess I was just saying that ideally a Westminster system is supposed to be representative of everyone, and if there is greater variation in the complexion of both houses (including women, indigenous, immigrant, gay, transgender, muslim, etc etc etc) then that seems better than having a corporation of white, middle class, men.
I don't know what you mean by list system or PR... being elected as the representative for a particular federal electorate (riding - stupid name) means you have a seat in the lower house in the Federal Parliament.
I'm pretty unschooled in all of this, it certainly is interesting, but I am fairly disillusioned with contemporary government anyway.
Politics, being political, just seem so insincere; and boringly, the agency of people figure far too greatly for my liking. I'm more interested in bureaucracy and governmentality, because then you can avoid talking about people altogether !