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 !
I was talking institutional reality of the electoral system as we have it thanks to "Westminster" (which I have now looked up, and Australia is no longer operating under the Westminster system [in terms of elections, anyway]. Lucky bastards). I.e., I was moaning about first past the post, which, imo, can piss off.
Canada does not have a system of preferentially elected MPs and Senators (in fact, Canada still has appointed Senators for life) - this is what I meant by a "list" system (STV) in relation to Australia. In fact, I suspect Canada will be the last country on earth with a pure Westminster system. At least, it's looking very likely to be the case as the actual Westminster looks toward electoral reform.
@
I was talking institutional reality of the electoral system as we have it thanks to "Westminster" (which I have now looked up, and Australia is no longer operating under the Westminster system [in terms of elections, anyway]. Lucky bastards). I.e., I was moaning about first past the post, which, imo, can piss off.
Canada does not have a system of preferentially elected MPs and Senators (in fact, Canada still has appointed Senators for life) - this is what I meant by a "list" system (STV) in relation to Australia. In fact, I suspect Canada will be the last country on earth with a pure Westminster system. At least, it's looking very likely to be the case as the actual Westminster looks toward electoral reform.