Is malapportionment ever justifiable? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 31, 2024, 09:57:24 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Is malapportionment ever justifiable? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Is malapportionment ever justifiable?
#1
No
 
#2
Can have small deviations to preserve communities of interest (without systematically favouring any group)
 
#3
Can have systematic favouring of some groups (e.g. rural electorates)
 
#4
Can have one chamber of a bicameral legislature (e.g. US Senate)
 
#5
Other (please state)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 28

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Is malapportionment ever justifiable?  (Read 2960 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« on: May 16, 2011, 01:47:09 PM »

For a unicameral legislature, no it is not.  For a multicameral legislature, it can be.  For example, in a Federal government, it would be reasonable for Federal laws that affect the state/provincial governments to be subject to a house where each government has equal weight.  (i.e., like the US Senate pre-17th Amendment, but restricted to certain topics)  A house in which apportionment is based not on population, but taxation would also be reasonable.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 11 queries.