Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic • Hacker News Board

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#41

Post by MarcScott » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:25 AM UTC

shasheene wrote: post #37

MarcScott wrote: post #33

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

Two houses helps prevent tyranny of the majority. Consider the United States. Each state gets 2 senators no matter what, but the proportion of House of Representatives seats each state gets is calculated based on the state's population. This quirk means that even small states like Wyoming have equal Senate representation as the populous states like California, Texas or New York. This arguably undemocratic over-repres…

But don't you end up with tyranny of the minority? Small states, that fit a very niche demographic, end up being pivotal in decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans, often due to the intense lobbying that is targeted at these senators.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#42

Post by afarrell » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:27 AM UTC

MarcScott wrote: post #33

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

The head of state, (as opposed to a head of government) acts as a symbolic center for belief in the “civic religion” of a country. Having them be separate allows for a sense of continuity, stability, and security —- that the entire world is not about to collapse into corruption and chaos —- to be maintained whilst the head of government can change in response to more rational needs for changes in policy.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#43

Post by vorpalhex » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:33 AM UTC

MarcScott wrote: post #41

shasheene wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two houses helps prevent tyranny of the majority. Consider the United States. Each state gets 2 senators no matter what, but the proportion of House of Representatives seats each state gets is calculated based on the state's population. This quirk means that even small states like Wyoming have equal Senate representation as the populous states like California, Texas or New York. This arguably undemocratic over-repres…

But don't you end up with tyranny of the minority? Small states, that fit a very niche demographic, end up being pivotal in decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans, often due to the intense lobbying that is targeted at these senators.

Which is why states have the ability to pass most legislation at the state level, such as minimum wage or labor laws.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#44

Post by MarcScott » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:35 AM UTC

myrion wrote: post #39

MarcScott wrote: post #33

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

Having two houses of parliament can be used to balance out regional representation with population-based representation. That way, population centers don't completely overshadow more rural areas. That can be overdone, like in the US, where rural areas can completely overshadow the population centers but the idea isn't terrible.

I live in an rural area where we elect a single MP, with a population of around 90,000. There are London districts with populations 3 times that number, that also elect a single MP.

So maybe you are right, and in the UK we often get rural areas over represented vs metropolitan centres. An obvious explanation for why Brexit occurred.

However, our second house is basically useless. I've had no say in their placement, and I rarely hear about them in the news unless the issue is about murdering foxes.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#45

Post by stordoff » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:37 AM UTC

MarcScott wrote: post #38

PostOnce wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes, you need some one to make a decision, and not have a really life-or-death, time-sensitive decision in the hands of a vacillating committee that fails to act until it is too late.

But in the UK we seem to have no issue with that. The Queen rubber stamps everything, and our upper house can be easily overruled. We've had no problems implementing emergency legislation during the pandemic, or past wars. So I just don't see the point of anything above and beyond a simple parliamentary democracy.

In principle, the UK's upper House acts as a house of scrutiny, both in that members can be appointed for having expertise in a particular area and because, as life appointees, they are not beholden to fickle political whims. The Parliament Acts allow it to be overruled, but not immediately - this generally forces a compromise between the two Houses. This recognises the democratic superiority of the Commons, whilst still giving the Lords opportunity for meaningful review and scrutiny.

How well this works in practice is a matter of endless debate.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#46

Post by hvusslax » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:52 AM UTC

MarcScott wrote: post #33

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

It is simply an historical artifact and by no means a constitutional necessity.

Sweden is an interesting case, a constitutional monarchy in theory but where the monarch has been explicitly stripped of all powers, whereas many other European monarchies maintain a legal fiction of constitutional relevance for their royal families. Sweden could abolish the monarchy completely today and it would not affect anything about how the country runs. They also have a unicameral parliament.

Switzerland also doesn't have a traditional head of state, that role is held collectively by a seven-member council.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#47

Post by hvusslax » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:58 AM UTC

rnmwfQ3f wrote: post #18

Mikeb85 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (Canadian) would personally vote to be a republic. Symbolic or not, I think it's absurd that hereditary rule exists in any form in the current day and age.

Why is that absurd?

Inheriting constitutionally priveliged positions seems a bit hard to square with everyone being equal before the law.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#48

Post by hef19898 » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:58 AM UTC

skissane wrote: post #12

chmod600 wrote: post #10

Is the general wisdom that the executive function should be a separate co-equal branch of government (like the US), or controlled by the legislature (how I understand a parliamentary system)?

Contemporary general wisdom is that parliamentary systems (executive subordinated to the legislature) do better than presidential systems (executive and legislature are separate and co-equal branches of government) https://theconversation.com/parliamentary-systems-do-better-... It is worth pointing out though that you can have a parliamentary republic in which the President has very limited powers in practice and mos…

I life in a parliamentary syatem, and branches, all of them, are equal. In pratical terms, there is some overlap since people in the executive tend to be pretty powerful in the legislative as well. If you take France, with a pretty strong President, even the president needs the legeslative to pass laws, he can't order them around.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#49

Post by techsupporter » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 8:00 AM UTC

shasheene wrote: post #37

MarcScott wrote: post #33

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

Two houses helps prevent tyranny of the majority. Consider the United States. Each state gets 2 senators no matter what, but the proportion of House of Representatives seats each state gets is calculated based on the state's population. This quirk means that even small states like Wyoming have equal Senate representation as the populous states like California, Texas or New York. This arguably undemocratic over-repres…

> Compared to the House of Representatives which has 4 year terms, and half up for reelection every 2 years.

BTW, terms for Representatives are two years; the entire House stands for election every even-numbered year.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#50

Post by EarlKing » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 8:01 AM UTC

MarcScott wrote: post #41

shasheene wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two houses helps prevent tyranny of the majority. Consider the United States. Each state gets 2 senators no matter what, but the proportion of House of Representatives seats each state gets is calculated based on the state's population. This quirk means that even small states like Wyoming have equal Senate representation as the populous states like California, Texas or New York. This arguably undemocratic over-repres…

But don't you end up with tyranny of the minority? Small states, that fit a very niche demographic, end up being pivotal in decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans, often due to the intense lobbying that is targeted at these senators.

What you call a 'tyranny of the minority' is in fact an equal representation of classes... that the rural proletariat is represented in government rather than yielding all decisions to the urban bourgeoisie. The American form of government was designed specifically to ensure a balance of interests rather than allowing one class to run roughshod over the other. It's a design feature, and a good one at that, no matter how much it distresses imperialists who'd prefer to simply dictate the course of affairs to the working class.