2012 Japan Elections voided due to malapportionment.

[Benj]

Not the whole elections, just elections in a couple of districts in Hiroshima. Interesting that the courts in Japan are actually getting serious about the problems of malapportionment, though.

[Benj]

I've also read the malaportionment has a tendency to favor rural areas the LDP does strong in as well...

The extent to which malapportionment matters for partisan purposes is overblown. The LDP is also strong in most cities, including Tokyo, and the non-LDP parties all have some presence in at least some rural, overrepresented areas. But it is true that LDP politicians tended to perpetuate malapportionment for their own individual benefit, which ultimately benefited the party as well.

[Benj]

Yeah, the urban-rural divide in Japan is weaker than in a lot of other countries, although it's true that a lot of rural prefectures have or had big LDP machines. Parts of urban Kanto and Kansai are obscenely right-wing (like, considerably further right than the LDP mainstream even under Abe) and a lot of the remote north is by Japanese standards fairly left-leaning.

I will add that Japan may be headed towards a political alignment where malapportionment does majorly favor the LDP. The urban-rural alliance that has formed the bedrock of the LDP is beginning to break down, as the rise of the JRP demonstrates. While the LDP has temporarily won a reprieve by being the only party viewed as "legitimate" with the unpopularity of the DPJ, I would not be surprised to see Japan enter a period of three-party politics where the LDP is mostly shut out of urban areas. Not because the urban areas are left-wing, but because the LDP is increasingly a party of rural conservatism and not the flashy urban conservatism of the JRP. Of course, the JRP will need to start winning seats in cities other than Osaka if that is to happen.

[Benj]

The House of Representatives is the more powerful of the two houses, able to override vetoes on bills imposed by the House of Councillors with a two-thirds majority.



How did the LDP end up with massive majorities in the lower house and not be close in the 'Senate'? I presume that the Councillors is Senate like in terms of population inequality but it looks like they try to partially correct for this by giving Tokyo and such extra Councillors.

Elections for each house are separate. The House of Councillors is elected by halves, with the last two elections in 2007 and 2010. There's another election this year, where the majority of seats up for reelection are DPJ-held. In 2007, the LDP was persona non grata, and the DPJ (and allies) won 65/121 seats to 46/121 for the LDP/NKP alliance (the balance was won by the Communists (3 seats) and various independents, mostly of the anti-LDP variety). In 2010, the LDP did better and gained some ground, but the DPJ was still the largest party (though the LDP won the most seats of those up in 2010).

The House of Councillors is not at all "Senate-like". It's supposed to be properly proportionate in distribution but suffers from the same redistribution inertia as the House of Representatives. It also has weird multi-member seats in some places and has basically the same kind of extra proportional list seats that the House of Representatives has.

[Benj]

Someone should strike down the US Senate because of malapportionment.

I could theoretically see a SCOTUS with like 7 liberal appointees ruling that Senate apportionment without respect to state population violates the 14th and 15th Amendments.  The remedy would probably be to give the large states a bunch of extra Senators, not to abolish the chamber entirely.

Except the Constitution explicitly says that not only is the Senate defined as representing each state equally, it's (according to dominant interpretation) impossible to change that even through amendment without the consent of every state involved. It's the one single solitary entrenched clause in the Constitution, and the Constitution can't be held in violation of itself.

You're right.

Incidentally, here's something I've always wondered. So article V says that certain things in the Constitution can never be modified through Amendment. But if you really wanted to modify them, wouldn't it be very simple to circumvent that clause? You simply need to pass two Amendments instead of one: the first Amendment repealing the clause that makes it impossible to change what you want to change - then the second Amendment could enact all the changes you want. Is that correct? There is nothing in the "thiscan'tbechanged" clause that says the clause itself can't be changed.

Of course.