Hmm... options. Let them be replaced by the original party? Leave them unfilled? Hold regularly scheduled (annual?) low-cost bi-elections and leave them unfilled until that point... um...
Personally, I think elections should be free to love whomever they choose. Who are we to force them into one orientation or another? ;)
As ever, I am intrigued by the Parliamentary Governing system. Obviously it works, else it wouldn't be in far more free governments than the one outlined in the US Constitution. I think I get it for the most part, but, if you please, would you define "bi-elections" for a south of the border fella?
So, I spell all bad and the like. The term should be "By-elections", and I guess they're equivalent to what you call "special elections", if I understand terms correctly.
Apparently Scotland and New Zealand have proportional representation and they hold by-elections. I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around that idea, though.
thanks for the clarification. I am completely unfamiliar with the term, so I didn't even know it was misspelled. Thanks for your patience with the uneducated :)
I guess you have to select some critical point at which N resignations is sufficiently unrepresentitive to justify the cost and hassle of a by-election, at which point you get to decide whether the election is to replace all of the seats or just the missing ones.
Either way seems unfair. If four majority party ministers resigned to join the Cabinet and just those seats were up for grabs then they would be highly unlikely to recapture them all. But on the other hand, if everyone had to run again then a minority party could trigger a by-election whenever they saw an uptick in the polls just by having all of their ministers resign. (Oh, and that's assuming that the by-election was proportional itself -- if it was a direct election then the majority party would be expected to win all of the seats.)
So I'd think that N would have to be pretty darned large. Guess if I ran the show, I'd have the terms be short enough that you wouldn't mind the party leaders appointing replacements (or the seats remaining empty) until the next general election.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Hmm... options.
Let them be replaced by the original party? Leave them unfilled? Hold regularly scheduled (annual?) low-cost bi-elections and leave them unfilled until that point... um...
no subject
I'm really not fond of that option, I gotta confess.
bi-elections?
As ever, I am intrigued by the Parliamentary Governing system. Obviously it works, else it wouldn't be in far more free governments than the one outlined in the US Constitution. I think I get it for the most part, but, if you please, would you define "bi-elections" for a south of the border fella?
Re: bi-elections?
Apparently Scotland and New Zealand have proportional representation and they hold by-elections. I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around that idea, though.
Re: bi-elections?
no subject
Either way seems unfair. If four majority party ministers resigned to join the Cabinet and just those seats were up for grabs then they would be highly unlikely to recapture them all. But on the other hand, if everyone had to run again then a minority party could trigger a by-election whenever they saw an uptick in the polls just by having all of their ministers resign. (Oh, and that's assuming that the by-election was proportional itself -- if it was a direct election then the majority party would be expected to win all of the seats.)
So I'd think that N would have to be pretty darned large. Guess if I ran the show, I'd have the terms be short enough that you wouldn't mind the party leaders appointing replacements (or the seats remaining empty) until the next general election.
no subject