Can the Western Democracies become more democratic?

[Pure]

Can the western democracies become more democratic? How?

Would moving toward *proportional* representation be better and more democratic? Approximations exist in several countries. These insure that if a party gets 30% of the vote, they will have something roughly similar in representation, whereas now, a party with 30% may end up with 2% or even NO representative. In other countries [e.g. New Zealand], there are 'mixed' schemes that have an element of proportionality, as in the the present proposal for Canada.

The present proposal has come up in Canada. Given a parliament, as in Canada, one way to proceed [the New Zealand model] is given below.

Besides the MPs selected in the usual way [local ridings {areas}], there would be additional ones chosen from 'party lists' so as to approach--come closer to-- proportional representation. *the lists would be balanced for gender.* Thus if, for example, a quarter of the total MP came from these lists that would move parliament, the total, from its present 20%, to, say 30% women.

So, is this a good way to get more women into the legislature?


The US case is trickier, though in theory additional members could be added to the House of Reps (which goes, somewhat, by population) and/or the Senate (with 2 senators per state, no matter how small or desolate). Perhaps a Constitutional am't would be required.




====
http://www.thestar.com/article/215539

[Toronto, Canada]


ELECTORAL REFORM


Changing Ontario's voting system would improve gender balance in politics, by Rosemary Speirs

May 21, 2007 04:30 AM
For 30 years, I spent a lot of time in Press galleries, looking down at the sea of men in dark suits on the floor of the House of Commons, and the Ontario Legislature, and Quebec's National Assembly.

There's nothing quite like watching a mostly male gathering debating women's abortion rights, or a conclave of male First Ministers declaring we don't need a national child-care program. The experience turned me into an advocate for reforming the way we elect our politicians.

In her presentation last winter to the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, Charm Darby, a former city hall candidate, illustrated what is askew from a woman's point of view.

"I speak to you as a woman; an immigrant woman, a woman of colour, raising a teenage daughter who wonders why she does not see the reflection of herself in the political spectrum. I am certain that young girls all over this province wonder why there are so few women in positions of political power."

In recent years, the number of women lawmakers across Canada has peaked at 21 per cent. You could count well-known female politicians on one hand. The most high profile, Belinda Stronach, is stepping out after enduring sexist name-calling by fellow MPs and prurient snooping by the media. No wonder women think they aren't welcome in the political power game and shy away from seeking nomination and election.

Ontario's three party leaders, Dalton McGuinty, John Tory and Howard Hampton, have publicly pledged to run more women in this fall's provincial election, but they are encountering some reluctance in the female talent pool. It is hard to recruit women who despise the way the game is played.

However, along with the election this fall, we have an historic opportunity.

While casting our votes, we will also vote in a referendum on electoral reform, deciding whether to switch to a new voting model which I believe would make politics more woman-friendly. The Ontario Citizens' Assembly, a body of 103 citizens randomly selected by Elections Ontario, has issued a strong call for a "mixed member proportional" system.

The citizens propose we move gently to reform our electoral system by keeping a majority of MPPs from local ridings, but adding a new element – a minority of representatives elected from party lists. As a future voter, you'd make two marks on the ballot; one for your favourite local candidate, and one for the party of your choice.

Under the new system, 90 members would still be elected locally, but 39 would be elected from party lists to ensure fairer representation for all voters.

Once the 90 riding results were determined in the usual way, each party would fill additional seats from its list to bring its total share of the Legislature into line with its share of the popular vote. Any party would quickly realize it needed to include women at the top of the list, not to mention visible minorities and first nations representatives. So it is off these lists, balanced for gender, that more women would be elected – and many more of the now-under-represented. The long reign of the "backroom boys" would give way to something more civilized.

Getting this attractive reform into law is going to be difficult. Already, supporters of the status quo are waving red flags, suggesting that the reform would create two classes of MPPs, with those elected off the list having a weaker relationship to their electors.

It has been quite the opposite in New Zealand, where the "mixed" system has boosted the number of female legislators to 32 per cent. New Zealand's list members generally choose to work in ridings held by other parties, providing constituents with more than one channel to the Legislature. Forms of proportional representation based entirely on lists, as in Sweden, do even better at electing women. So the Ontario proposal is a compromise, which will bring progress for women, but more slowly.

"In most systems using proportional representation, lists of candidates are used and women have a better chance of getting on the list than they do in riding by riding contests," Doris Anderson, our iconic women's leader, told the Citizens' Assembly just weeks before her death.

Meanwhile, taking advantage of by-elections to run women, the three Ontario party leaders have boosted the number of female MPPs at Queen's Park to 25 per cent, a record high, which will be difficult to match in a general election. The reform that the Citizens' Assembly is recommending would secure those gains, and more.

Chances are that the first election under the reformed system would finally result in a "critical mass," enough women in the Legislature to fairly represent the differing priorities of the female half of the population.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosemary Speirs is a former national affairs columnist for the Star.

 

[Liar]

Can the western democracies become more democratic? How?

Would moving toward *proportional* representation be better and more democratic? Approximations exist in several countries. These insure that if a party gets 30% of the vote, they will have something roughly similar in representation, whereas now, a party with 30% may end up with 2% or even NO representative. In other countries [e.g. New Zealand], there are 'mixed' schemes that have an element of proportionality, as in the the present proposal for Canada.

We've had proportional parament representation for 128 years. Every party wioth more then 4% of the total votes gets a proportional piece of the seat pie. Seems to work. Makes the parlament more interrested in finding broad majorities with several parites. Consensus becomes more important than polarization. And politics in general moved away from the extreme ends.

The difference is that we're a small country, so regional difference is kind of a moot point compared to national interrests.

I think the EU parlament has a good setup for it all. Countries are granted a number of seats based on size. I think smaller countrioes have more seats the they proportionally should though, so that the big hogs don't domniate all desicions. But then again, a large region should have more power. Then those seats are filled by national elections. So we often have alliances of Scandinavian Soc-Dems, UK Labour and French Socialists cooperating on the issues where the interrersts are ideological, but then they can oppose each other when the interrrests are regional or national. You get an accurate representation of the left and right, but it isn't the end of local interrests.

Now, if only the EU palament wasn't just a pointless debate club, but actually had the political power in the union...

 

[rgraham666]

Sigh. It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

The problem is not with our system, it is with us. Most people don't understand democracy very well, aren't willing to put the effort into it that it requires and are trained in a distinctly anti-democratic manner.

Until we change ourselves we're not going to get better results no matter what system we use.

 

[gauchecritic]

It's probably a good idea (as in some Scandinavian country I've heard(?)) to make the populace vote. Even if they tick the box marked 'I don't want to vote'.

I presume this would then mean that politics would be taught in some form or another in schools.

Unfortunately (for the politicians) this would then lead to an informed electorate.

The very last thing I would allow is monumental spending on electioneering without content, specifically "Don't vote for the other guy because..."

But that's probably just me, I wouldn't allow companies to advertise dreams, promises and innuendo instead of products either.

 

[Liar]

It's probably a good idea (as in some Scandinavian country I've heard(?)) to make the populace vote. Even if they tick the box marked 'I don't want to vote'.

Methinks you've heard wrong. However, Australia, Belgium, Luxemburg, Greece, Italy and the Netherlands all have compulsory voting.

Although in Italy, there's no penalty for not voting. So people still don't.

 

[neonlyte]

Can the western democracies become more democratic? How?

Besides the MPs selected in the usual way [local ridings {areas}], there would be additional ones chosen from 'party lists' so as to approach--come closer to-- proportional representation. *the lists would be balanced for gender.* Thus if, for example, a quarter of the total MP came from these lists that would move parliament, the total, from its present 20%, to, say 30% women.

So, is this a good way to get more women into the legislature?

Positive discrimnation, regardless of 'good intent', is ultimately a self-fulfilling bell curve with the disadvantage that it is unbalanced toward mediocrity at both ends of the curve, and even possibly all the way through since even meritorious candidates are discouraged from contending.

My first conscious political argument was for 'democratic dictatorship'. Having lived through countless democratically elected governments, I'm not so sure my first instinct was wrong. Problem is how to democratically elect the fucker I want.

 

[S-Des]

Sigh. It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

The problem is not with our system, it is with us. Most people don't understand democracy very well, aren't willing to put the effort into it that it requires and are trained in a distinctly anti-democratic manner.

Until we change ourselves we're not going to get better results no matter what system we use.

Thank you, saved me the effort of trying to say it. How about instead of changing the system to get the results you want, women change the system by actual taking the time to vote? We have such low turnout here in the states, that minority groups would actually have an enormous impact on elections if they'd just turnout in numbers proportional to their desire for change (and women are more than 1/2 the population last time I heard, so they could do pretty much anything they wanted to, even with moderate turnout). I notice the author complained that women didn't feel "wanted" in the political spectrum. Boo hoo. I didn't feel "wanted" in high school, where I was mercilessly picked on and ostracized. I didn't feel "wanted" at my first important job (where I saved the company tens of thousands of dollars annually and they rewarded me by trying to fire me) . . . . We all face adversity and what makes us grow as humans is standing up to the challenge.

The only woman running for President is Hillary, who I distrust on every level. We finally have a minority candidate worth voting for this time around (after a lifetime of waiting). Where are the choices? Where are the qualified women & minorities stepping forward with a vision to take the country in a new direction? When the election happens, will we see women turning out in the 80%-90% range, so they can effect real change? No, we'll see pathetic turnout, then everyone will sit around and bitch about why it doesn't get better. Here's an idea, quit bitching and MAKE change.

 

[Pure]

How about instead of changing the system to get the results you want, women change the system by actual taking the time to vote? We have such low turnout here in the states, that minority groups would actually have an enormous impact on elections if they'd just turnout in numbers proportional to their desire for change (and women are more than 1/2 the population last time I heard, so they could do pretty much anything they wanted to, even with moderate turnout).

===

P: afaik, US women vote in about the same proportion as men, somewhere around 30%. obviously if they had twice the turn out rate, they would --or could--change things. however, i don't go along with your logic. it requires women vote more eagerly [greater participation rate] than men, *to get the same status *.

i might mention that this strategy is, afaik, not very effective for minorities, at least at a national level. i think, in some parts of the US, the black people DO vote in higher proportion, but that doesn't yield proportional gains; they remain under represented in Congress. the reason, as you know, is that the dominant party gets to draw the district lines [see the recent battle in Texas]. minority areas are either divided into small pieces attached to white areas (so as to be neutralized) and/or concentrated in a very few areas; i believe this is why you see that Black people, who make up at least 15% of the California population--to take one example-- do not have one sixth of the California seats in the House.

in any case, while it's true more effort would pay off a bit, it's unfair to charge women and minorities to make double the effort for a small result.

----

it looks like you and others did not read the specific proposal. pity.



===

here are some numbers, just so some facts are 'on the table'; note that women, in the House, seem far less proportionally represented than black people.

the US figures for 1990, show Black people at 12% and Hispanics at 9%.

in the Senate, the white millionaire's club, it's fuck the women and minorities: there are apparently 16 women, and no black people or hispanics.
{from answers.com: Of the 16 female senators currently serving, 11 are Democrats and 5 are Republicans. }




http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=65759


Subject: Re: Minorities in US government
Answered By: politicalguru-ga on 16 Sep 2002 17:57 PDT
Rated:
Dear amh15,

According to the Senate's site <http://www.senate.gov> "More than
13,000 individuals who have served in the national legislature,
including the Continental Congress, the Senate, and the House of
Representatives". Of these people, a very meager amount - sometimes
less than a percent and always less than their share in the population
- are members of minority groups.

According to the Senate's site, only three Senate current Senate
members are minorities - two Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (both D
Hawaii) and one Native American (R Colorado) (see: US Senate, "Senate
Statistics" <http://www.senate.gov/learning/stat_15.html>). That is 3%
of the members of the Senate, and way beyond the national average for
these and other groups.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=65759


In the House of Representatives, There are 66 minority members - "1 is
Native American, 38 are African American, 21 Hispanic and 6 Asian
(source: Congressman Tom Barrett, "About the U.S. House Of
Representatives" <http://www.house.gov/barrett/abouthor.htm>).
Basically, that means that about 15% of the members are minority.

The Congressional Black Caucus is a group of the African American
representatives in the Congress. They write, that "103 African
Americans in total have taken their place in United States history as
Congressional leaders, chosen to represent diverse communities".
Currently, there are 38 African Americans in the Congress - all in the
House of Representatives, "14 women and 24 men" (source for both
quotes: CBC, "Origins and History of the
Congressional Black Caucus, 1870 - 2002",
<http://cbcfinc.org/History.html>).

The CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION adds, "Following the 1990 census,
redistricting throughout the country increased the number of
African-American and Hispanic majority districts. After the 1992
elections, the number of African-American members of the House of
Representatives jumped from 26 to 39. ... Blacks, who make up about 12
percent of the U.S. population, hold about 7 percent of the seats in
the House of Representatives today." (Source: "Race and
Representation" <http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria12_2.html>)

Although only a political - not numerical - minority, it may also be
noted that "Women today are 11% of the members of Congress - 11.5% of
the members of the House of Representatives, and 9% of the Senate"
(and 51% of the population). {pure: these figures are not the most recent, see above, currently women are 16%}

 

[rgraham666]

Even here we can see the corporatism that affects us. We're already talking corporations (women, minorities) when we should be talking about society.

It wouldn't matter if men were the majority of power holders in our system if they considered all the myriad forces in our society. Women and minorities would not be excluded from consideration in this case.

Democracy is about balance. We're not a very balanced people. No system of voting we create is going to change that.

 

[Pure]

who is "we"?

 

[S-Des]

===

P: afaik, US women vote in about the same proportion as men, somewhere around 30%. obviously if they had twice the turn out rate, they would --or could--change things. however, i don't go along with your logic. it requires women vote more eagerly [greater participation rate] than men, *to get the same status *.

i might mention that this strategy is, afaik, not very effective for minorities, at least at a national level. i think, in some parts of the US, the black people DO vote in higher proportion, but that doesn't yield proportional gains; they remain under represented in Congress. the reason, as you know, is that the dominant party gets to draw the district lines [see the recent battle in Texas]. minority areas are either divided into small pieces attached to white areas (so as to be neutralized) and/or concentrated in a very few areas; i believe this is why you see that Black people, who make up at least 15% of the California population--to take one example-- do not have one sixth of the California seats in the House.

Agreed. It's a slimy political trick employed by both parties while they have the power. Still, there are more than enough of the largest minority parties (black and hispanic) to effect real change. In Chicago, we have mostly minority representation locally, and a fair amount of minority representaion nationally (including an African American female Senator not too long ago). I disagree that it's unfair to ask people to vote in higher numbers. If you want change, make change. Why is that unfair? Are people supposed to give you what you want without you having to make an effort? Really, do you think voting once every 2 or even 4 years is such an imposition that it puts unbearable pressure on the poor people being asked to take their future into their own hands? It can be inconvenient, especially when there are problems with the voting system or lack of choices, but it certainly is not beyond people's power to take charge. We could have one election that would change the entire political landscape, if people just simply made the effort.

in any case, while it's true more effort would pay off a bit, it's unfair to charge women and minorities to make double the effort for a small result.

Sorry, I disagree. People have always made sacrifices to get what they want. People march, they protest, they get petitions signed, they go to meetings, etc... Why you would think that spending one afternoon every couple of years to do something that would change everyone's life is too much to ask, is beyond me.

it looks like you and others did not read the specific proposal. pity.

I read it...I just think it's silly. Trying to make drastic changes to our political structure because most people are too lazy to vote is incomprehensible to me. There was a time when people really were oppressed and had to fight for any rights they wanted. Now the rights are at your fingertips if you just make the smallest amount of effort. It wouldn't fix all of our problems, but throwing out Democrats and Republicans in one massive sweep would go along way to showing politicians that the days of them assuming priveledge to their positions (and perks) for life are over. I'd be more than happy to help with the organization and to vote right alongside those people. So now it's time for someone to actually make an effort.

 

[rgraham666]

who is "we"?

Everyone of us, Pure. I don't discard people from my consideration just because they're not like me.

 

[Pure]

It wouldn't matter if men were the majority of power holders in our system if they considered all the myriad forces in our society. Women and minorities would not be excluded from consideration in this case.

Democracy is about balance. We're not a very balanced people. No system of voting we create is going to change that.

if "we" is all humans, we can look at better and worse political arrangements, no?

your 'argument' above is just boilerplate that could have been employed against extending the vote to women or blacks in the first place.

i'd argue that some countries do better at representing women, and your speculations about idealized "men" who consider all the other folks are not to the point.

if some countries do better, possibly Canada and US could learn from them.

 

[neonlyte]

it looks like you and others did not read the specific proposal. pity.

The proposal is daft, Pure.

The only 'candidates' to be elected under this system are 'politically motivated' candidates. That sounds fine in principle but 'politicians' in many democracies are not doing a very good job of governing - by governing I mean listening and responding to public opinion.

Sure, we would all like to see a government reflective in gender, race, and even age, of the population it governs. How do you achieve it? Not by setting 'quotas', IMO.

 

[rgraham666]

if "we" is all humans, we can look at better and worse political arrangements, no?

your 'argument' above is just boilerplate that could have been employed against extending the vote to women or blacks in the first place.

i'd argue that some countries do better at representing women, and your speculations about idealized "men" who consider all the other folks are not to the point.

if some countries do better, possibly Canada and US could learn from them.

Missed the point, pure.

If you think a 'better system' will allow for more a wider representation and that this wider representation will allow a society to be more successful, you're free to think so.

I disagree. The tool doesn't matter. The tool users do.

I'm out of this one. Ciao.

 

[Pure]

note to rr and neon.

in theory i question many aspects of the 'progress' or 'we're getting better' worldview. see the other thread on 'myths of history'

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=518307&page=4

in practice, if there's a vote to end slavery, or extend the franchise, i get down from my misanthropic pedestal and vote 'yes.'


===

so neon, you're saying those Kiwis are daft?

 

[Huckleman2000]

If I may play the iconoclast....
Adding more democracy isn't the problem. With Referendum laws, it's far too easy for mobs to make their own law as it is!

The difficulty, imo, is with the pervasive influence of moneyed interests. I understand that the system isn't perfect; that voters in small states get a larger say in the electoral college, that representation isn't very proportional, even in the House, and that there are various voting permutations to address those deficiencies. I get that. But I still think that getting money out of the equation would go a long way towards fixing the same ills.

 

[S-Des]

If I may play the iconoclast....
Adding more democracy isn't the problem. With Referendum laws, it's far too easy for mobs to make their own law as it is!

The difficulty, imo, is with the pervasive influence of moneyed interests. I understand that the system isn't perfect; that voters in small states get a larger say in the electoral college, that representation isn't very proportional, even in the House, and that there are various voting permutations to address those deficiencies. I get that. But I still think that getting money out of the equation would go a long way towards fixing the same ills.

I completely agree. I've never bought the argument that money equals speech. Money equals corruption. Unfortunately that's unlikely to change unless we get a sudden surge of people voting for change or some candidates who stand up and say, "The others in my party are corrupt". Sadly, that's even less likely to happen.

 

[Liar]

I disagree. The tool doesn't matter. The tool users do.

It's easier to fillet a herring with a sharp knife than with a dull one. But each to his own.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Pure: Can the western democracies become more democratic?

Rumple: Of course. The real question is, will they?

==

Pure: How?

Rumple: Varies from democracy to democracy


Rumple Foreskin

 

[neonlyte]

so neon, you're saying those Kiwis are daft?

Well... you omitted the smiley, and we both know I didn't actually say that

New Zealand was the first country in the world to give women the vote, 1893 to be precise. In 1993 the country voted in a referendum to change from a pularity system of voting to proportional representation based upon the MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) system. The voting system is a little complicated and largely irrelevant to pre and post MMP elections.

MMP was adopted because the Labour Party won more votes and fewer seats than the National party in elections during the previous decade. Prior to MMP, New Zealand had women elected to 23% of its parliament, this rose under the first MMP election in 1996 to 29% and now stands at 32% following the recent election. This latest percentage is significantly below the Scandinavian countries - high 30's to high 40's and well below Ruwanda at 49% though allowance must be made for the 30% guaranteed womens percentage.

For point of reference Canada stands at 20.8% (2006), the UK at 19.7% (2005) and the USA at 16.3% (2006). Of the 197 countries using a voting system to elect governments, only 14% retain the FPP (First Past the Post) system - however, I note Saudi Arabia is listed in the research so take these figures with a pinch of salt.

Apart from an intitial hike in elected NZ women following the introduction of MMP, getting more women elected through proportional representation is proving a slow haul. In fact the UK has made better progress (9.5% - 1991) than NZ sticking with FPP.

This is the view of Professor Gary Hawke, Head of the School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington - I think he makes a lot of sense.

There is a tradition of thinking that asserts that ideas change with the passing of generations rather than with changes of mind. Public opinion changes as generations die off and are replaced by younger people with equally fixed but different ideas. It is an exaggeration, but it has some basis.

Our political system has been one of mixed member-proportional representation for more than a decade, but many people still think in terms of the first-past-the-post electoral system. It existed for most of the lifetimes of most of the current electorate, and contrary to what political junkies think, most people are concerned with politics only when their interests are directly affected – occasionally and usually ephemerally. So traditional thinking persists.

Cabinet was supreme

The former system could reasonably be described as dictatorship with occasional assassination by elections. We elected Parliaments and once the result was known and the winning party elected a Cabinet, Parliament was only occasionally significant. Cabinet was supreme, until it lost an election. That is an exaggeration – future Ministers could make their reputations in Parliament and the public regard for the Cabinet was affected by proceedings in Parliament – but it is not a caricature.

MMP made a difference. Elections now determine the composition of Parliament but no longer have as direct an effect on the nature of the Executive. Those who felt betrayed by the negotiations which followed the 1996 election and gave them a government different from what they thought they voted for had not understood the logic of MMP. Parliament is now more genuinely representative, and citizens' monitoring of the executive is indirect rather than direct.

If we really wanted direct control, we would have frequent referenda – and modern information and communications technology make that possible.

But most of us do not want to spend our time and effort getting on top of the kind of issues that need determination in Parliament. We want agents to do that for us. Deliberative government is likely to be more informed than direct democracy – whatever public opinion polls say about the public regard for Members of Parliament.

This is not to say that the kind of person we elect to be an MP is likely to have the skills to analyse proposals and make wise choices on behalf of the wider public. The demands by lobby groups and the media for specific policy positions from political parties are an anachronistic echo from the former electoral system. Even then MPs were likely to be required to adjudicate on issues not foreseen at the time of an election. Now nobody can foresee the policy agenda because it depends on what Executive emerges from intra-parliamentary negotiations after an election – and the earlier limitations on the ability to forecast events is compounded.

 

[Pure]

first a general point, then replying to neon. i think the problem of 'governing for the people,' and 'by the people' [democracy in an ideal sense] is NOT the same as having MORE instantaneous and direct processes, like internet polls on every little thing; these often being called 'direct democracy.' so (i say) it's not just a question, for improvement of 'democracy', of how to have more people 'vote' all the time, e.g. 6 times per day by their cell phones-- american idol style.

the point is that the people are, arguably, best served when there is an element of indirectness [system resistance and inertia], so that an inflamed mob does not instantly have its way. (just as an individual is best served if she has a chequing and a savings account, and can't, from a bank machine, instantly drain the savings account [for that she has to go in person, to the bank].)

===

those are good points, neon, and certainly a parliamentary system has many points of weakness (besides money influence); one of the greatest is that members simply 'toe' the line and don't act independently, even a little, of the party and its 'whip.' the same occurs in the US when legislators get the word from Bush "Pass this Patriot Act" and vote on the 600 page doc without reading it.

the reason i asked if you claimed the kiwis are daft is that you called the Canadaian proposal "daft," and it's explicitly modeled on the NZ system. seemed like a fair extension of your line of argument.

i think the main point is that these things are not writ in stone, as Americans tend to think. there are no good logical reasons the US legislative 'arm' could not be improved.* the same applies here in Canada; we're still trying to move beyond the "house of lords" type of senate, and have voter chose, instead of party cronies.

Americans forget that their Senate was NOT even directly elected, in the founders' Constitution; so it's had one major reform already.

Another improvement would be for an impartial commission to decide boundary lines for ridings, rather than have a party in power gerrymander like crazy to keep their advantage.

As you say, a number of countries are doing rather well with women in the parliament. Several of these have proportional rep, or some mixture. I think Canada might do well to follow one or other of these models.

None of the above, of course, is meant to imply that self interested, narrow people can ever have a perfect government. Nor do i mean to suggest that
*parliament* itself is the one way to have 'democracy,' it seems like the best, among the evils. there are also many ways to have a 'parliament'; one factor being the strength of parties. Kenya, for example, had a one party system and a parliament, for some time. Are two parties more democratic than one? who knows? It's also possible, in a parliament to have subdivisions for interest groups--like the old French 'estates'--i think the present HK governing body is like that [though i'm not crazy about it].

---

*there are, of course, many good explanatory reasons the US Congress remains the 'withered branch.' a good many powerful people and interests want it that way (compliant, venal).