Surely there’s no single ‘right’ answer and it depends on the decisions you’re hoping for them to make. If you want the potholes on your street filled, then you want someone local who represents only a few thousand people. If you’re wanting a trade deal between your block of nations and another, then you will need to pick a relatively few representatives with larger constituencies.
kwlf wrote:
Surely any politician should be representing the population who has voted for them?
Absolutely – the question is more how you define “population who has voted for them” in the context of a parliament.
I’m a white, straight, middle aged man who is a husband, father, knowledge worker, entrepreneur, private pilot, foodie, dog owner, … who happens to live in Germany.
When I vote for a member of European parliament, why would the defining factor of that “population they represent” just be my place of living and not be the many other parts of my identity with some of which being much more important. That we vote and being represented based on a regional distribution is a concept from medival times (a bit like the electoral college in the US) where everything other than casting a paper ballot into a local ballot box which is no more than 1hr by hours away was completely impractical.
I can see some practical hurdles but I find the concept intruiging.
How would you define the demographic categories by which people might be identified? Do you get to vote in one or several? Management is an optimisation problem where you balance sometimes conflicting priorities. Would it make the issue of single-issue politics worse or better if you have lots of politicians representing narrow demographics rather than trying to see the big picture?
kwlf wrote:
How would you define the demographic categories by which people might be identified?
Why do you need to define them upfront? If I could, e.g. cast my vote to any candidate that is up for election (and not just the ones assigned to my geographic region) it would be a great advantage, already. The I could still decide if I rather give it to a local candidate that I trust to do well for my region or perhaps to a candidate from southern France that is an GA enthusiast and will help to clean up the EASA mess. My choice!
In such a system regional candidates still have kind of an advantage because they are known locally (hopefully) but at least there is more choice.
Hmmm…. What limits the vast majority of people from voting for a few well recognised personalities, with all the other MEPs chosen by relatively small numbers of people?
Ted wrote:
I don’t even think he would be even allowed to leave either, unless its for good.
i.e. “if he were to leave now, he would not be allowed back in” ~ which is what I wrote :-)
kwlf wrote:
How would you define the demographic categories by which people might be identified?
The UK had plural voting until just after WW2 (limited to 2 votes per individual after WW1). The allowance was one vote per property or university per parliamentary constituency. For example, having degrees from Oxford and Cambridge, a flat in London, and a house in the country would mean 4 votes, albeit with some travelling required. Obviously this favoured landowners and those with higher education.
JS Mill is a proponent of having the number of votes based on qualifications in his Considerations on Representative Government.
kwlf wrote:
Hmmm…. What limits the vast majority of people from voting for a few well recognised personalities, with all the other MEPs chosen by relatively small numbers of people?
Interesting Question. Obviously one needs to define all the details of such a system much more granularly. Without having done that, here’s an initial thought:
Why not just define a “minimum vote threshold” that a candidate needs to receive to be part of the parliament at all? If the majority of votes are going to only a few candidates and all others only receive less than the threshold votes, the parliament would be very small – which is not really a problem because obviously the vast majority feels represented by them.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Absolutely – the question is more how you define “population who has voted for them” in the context of a parliament.
Even more so because a lot of people for ideological reasons cast their votes in a way which is not in their immediate self-interest.
My long term vision for Europe is influenced by what I see about the military/strategic partnerships currently being formed and broken. These relationships are interesting because they involve sovereignty and long term mutual dependance.
What I see is that France promotes a (not 100%, but mainly) independant European superpower, that would trace its own path among the superpowers of the 21st century (US, China, Russia, India maybe). It is a French idea of Europe being « France but bigger ». So we should put all our budgets and know-how in common to build an EU which has a vision for itself and the strategic means to achieve them (including lethal ones yes). It even implies France would loose business and know how to other EU countries.
What all the other countries answer is « well, we will never be safe outside the US umbrella, so let’s stay below it and we have businesses/jobs to keep ».
This is problematic. If European countries are too small for 21st century challenges, and at the same time, most want to rely on the US, it means becoming the 27 last US territories, and negociating to keep some business on this side of the pond. It is highly dissymetric.
When real projects are implemented, it gets even worse. 2 fighter aircraft programs are already planned. One with France /Germany/Spain, the other with UK/Italy/Sweden. The French/German brigade which is 20 years old is unused while German and Dutch armies are integrating. We are the fiercest competitors on most markets, or with the US. The path to a unified EU industry does not get easier every year.
When countries do not trust them to launch long term, strategic projects today, it will leave them divided as competitors for the next 30-40 years.
All I mean is : I don’t see EU agreeing on a single strategy, which would a first step before integrating our assets and future.
