Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

constitutionnet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 86 posts

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

#51

Post by shasheene »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #40
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…

unfortunately such situations often degenerate into a tyranny of the minority, the UK house of lords as a mechanism for the aristocracy to keep holding power with a veneer of democracy is a good example, which is why it has steadily lost political legitimacy through time. I don't think there is good evidence that the senate has in fact made the USA stronger as a nation, the only thing I have ever seen on the topic is…

I'd argue Joe Manchin (Democratic Senator of West Virginia) has single-handedly changed an eye-watering $3.5 trillion dollar spending bill into what appears to be a slightly less eye-watering $1.5 trillion package. The lower number (and thus lower taxes) makes it much more acceptable to a broader fraction of US society. Assuming the bill passes, it's an example of compromise working (but within negotiations of a single party).

The key thing is if one party wants to be able to pass the larger number without that pivotal vote, they need to appeal to a greater fraction of society and win more seats so they don't require that particular vote.

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

#52

Post by _ph_ »

vmception wrote: post #21

As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? The people keep doing it. Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK. Are people really so enamored by the crown? Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs? Island n…

One practical reason might be inertia. They have a system which doesn't have any urgent downsides, as the Queen is only formally the head of state but doesn't interfere with things. Which actually might be nice, as she is a known entity while an elected president might do a worse job. This could change quickly when the Queen dies. T

Then there is the effort required to establish an alternative system, both on the design and implementation side. Such a change is a huge step legally. So people might not be in a huge hurry unless driven by need.

And then there is of course the sentimental side. There is always a group of people who think the Queen should be the head of state and things shouldn't change. Even in many modern democracies, there are still a few supporters of monarchies. This all isn't of course driven by rational reasons. Just look at some of the sentiments driving the UK out of the EU despite pretty obvious risks for the trade which more and more manifest themselves by now.

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

#53

Post by hvusslax »

EarlKing wrote: post #50
MarcScott wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"What you call a 'tyranny of the minority' is in fact an equal representation of classes..."

Arbitrary geographical lines don't define classes. Every state has both rural and urban segments. Is the "rural proletariat" of California better represented than the "urban bourgeoise" of Rhode Island in this system? It's an 18th century compromise where the justifications where invented after the fact. This seems to be true for a lot of things about the founding of the United States. Lots of mythology around the motives of the founding fathers and their supposedly great designs that don't really hold up to any scrutiny.

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

#54

Post by _ph_ »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #4

Curious if when Queen Elizabeth passes away, if there will be a surge in republican interest in the various realms outside of the UK. For the vast majority of the population in those countries, she's the only monarch they've ever known. Once Charles, or perhaps William, takes over, that link to the past will have been severed.

Indeed. I wonder how many, who in those states support monarchy, do this because the Queen is a well known entity. People know her as the head of state, mostly keeping herself out of politics. Abolishing monarchy formally would mean that you risk to get a president, who might be a disappointment. Something similar could be observed in Germany: Angela Merkel kept winning elections, because there were enough people who wanted her to keep her office, even if they otherwise might not have voted for her party. This explains - at least to a part - the huge shift in the political landscape when she announced that she wouldn't run in this years election. This was amplified though by her party not being able to find a strong successor and tied up in internal struggles.

I am sure, with the death of the Queen, a lot of states might reconsider formally being a monarchy, depending how her succession turns out. Even in the UK itself, monarchy is discussed and there were times in recent history, where the royal family hat little public support.

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

#55

Post by _ph_ »

shasheene wrote: post #51
throwaway2048 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unfortunately such situations often degenerate into a tyranny of the minority, the UK house of lords as a mechanism for the aristocracy to keep holding power with a veneer of democracy is a good example, which is why it has steadily lost political legitimacy through time. I don't think there is good evidence that the senate has in fact made the USA stronger as a nation, the only thing I have ever seen on the topic is…

I'd argue Joe Manchin (Democratic Senator of West Virginia) has single-handedly changed an eye-watering $3.5 trillion dollar spending bill into what appears to be a slightly less eye-watering $1.5 trillion package. The lower number (and thus lower taxes) makes it much more acceptable to a broader fraction of US society. Assuming the bill passes, it's an example of compromise working (but within negotiations of a sing…

Well, that first of all depends on whetehr the budget cut is a good thing for the US and the world. From what I understand, this package is about fighting the climate change and investing into infrastructure and economy. Yes, government spending always bears the risk of taxes, but the idea behind government spending is to get neccessary things done. As an outsider, it is not obvious to me, that this resistance was a good thing. Neither for the US nor the world, as we are facing an existential crisis.

Also, as the sums are spent over many years, the numbers appear higher than they might be. Like people calculating how much money it costs to replace every single car in a country with an electric car. That numer is eye-watering too. What often isn't told, is that this amount of money is spent on new cars in the same time frame anyway. Choosing an electric instead of a combustion engine car the next time you buy a new car has actually little extra cost.

And you should sum up just the military budget in the same time frame :)

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

#56

Post by skissane »

hef19898 wrote: post #48
skissane wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What country do you live in?

By definition, in a parliamentary system, the executive is de facto subordinated to the legislature, even if they may be theoretically considered equal. If the executive and legislature are equal in your country, not just in theory but also in practice, then you do not live in a true parliamentary system, even if some might call your system “parliamentary”.

You mention France-as I said, France does not have a true parliamentary system, it has a semi-presidential system. In a semi-presidential system, the executive and legislature are more equal than in a true parliamentary system (in both theory and practice), albeit not quite as equal as in a true presidential system such as the United States.

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

#57

Post by unmole »

dragonwriter wrote: post #29
vmception wrote: post #21

As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? The people keep doing it. Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK. Are people really so enamored by the crown? Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs? Island n…

> As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? Are you confusing leaving the Commonwealth with transitioning to a Republic? They are largely unrelated: many members of the Commonwealth have dropped the monarchy. > Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK. The Commonwealth is neithe…

> The Commonwealth is neither a set of vassal states nor a defensive pact

Countries within the Commonwealth have gone to war against each other.

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

#58

Post by skissane »

ggm wrote: post #8
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #4

Curious if when Queen Elizabeth passes away, if there will be a surge in republican interest in the various realms outside of the UK. For the vast majority of the population in those countries, she's the only monarch they've ever known. Once Charles, or perhaps William, takes over, that link to the past will have been severed.

Australia voted no. Many assume this was older anglo Australians who revere the Queen and hope for a re vote when Charles accedes to the throne. He's a nong, and has much less visible support, and even active opposition. I personally suspect it's the dichotomy of directly elected president or a chamber elected symbolic president which functionally is what the governor general is. Basically the republican vote was spl…

> I voted for a republic. I wouldn't have, if the intent was to make it a direct election.

What is wrong with the Irish model? A President who is directly elected, but also largely apolitical, a mostly ceremonial role with strictly limited powers. A key element of the Irish model is tough nomination criteria - to run for President, one must be nominated either by 20 members of Parliament (9% of the total), or by 4 county/city councils (almost 13% of Ireland’s total). (A former President can self-nominate, although a President can only serve two seven year terms in their life.) This helps stop Presidential candidates coming from the political fringes.

Although Ireland has less than one fifth of Australia’s population, its Parliament (the Oireachtas) has almost as many members as Australia’s does, so the 20 member nomination threshold would be approximately equivalent in Australia. The 4 councils nomination threshold does not translate so well, since Australia has three levels of government (federal, state or local) while Ireland has only two (national and local). Roughly equivalent would be nomination by one of the state/territory governments, or by 69 LGAs.

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

#59

Post by w0de0 »

hvusslax wrote: post #47
rnmwfQ3f wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that absurd?

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

Neither position is inherently absurd, nor is their contradiction.

A more thoughtful response might have taken the time to contemplate the origins of government and the relationship between “absurdity,” your understanding of government and of virtuous government, and of the post-enlightenment ideologies assumed natural to our societies; in truth the vague syllogism between law and privilege you present is not some physical reality or logical QED but a gestural summation of ideas only very lately arrived to human affairs. Contemplative silence is one among many more interesting responses that were available to you.

In short: it’s obvious that ancient institutions and modern humanism are absurdly dissonant. Cleary OP meant to provoke a reconsideration, not a restatement, of the obvious.

Ironically it is obvious that one should not bother trying to rescue internet comments from their own pig-headedness - but sometimes I do sorely miss past iterations of HN.

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

#60

Post by hvusslax »

w0de0 wrote: post #59
hvusslax wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Neither position is inherently absurd, nor is their contradiction. A more thoughtful response might have taken the time to contemplate the origins of government and the relationship between “absurdity,” your understanding of government and of virtuous government, and of the post-enlightenment ideologies assumed natural to our societies; in truth the vague syllogism between law and privilege you present is not some ph…

You did not need to break your contemplative silence to write this empty pretentious drivel.

OP asked a question. I gave what seems to me to be the obvious answer.

Post reply on HN