1. avatar Nick

    My quick responses. (1) Very hard to say. The latest Economist has an excellent overview. (2) I find him rather irritating, but he’s seen as a new face. (3) Coalition? Minority government much likelier, I’d say. (4) Remember the winner-takes-all mentality: LDs may feel compelled to let the party with most seats form a government. (5) Ironic, really: everyone’s talking about public finances, but with very little detail. (6) I agree. (7) Maybe.

  2. avatar

    Australia does have a more proportional upper chamber. The logic is probably that the government is dependent on the lower chamber, and FTPT will usually give majority governments without coalitions. On the other hand, it may seam less “dangerous” to experiment with the less powerful chamber, where PR can give smaller parties a check (but not too much influence) on the larger ones.

    But unlike the UK, Australia is a federal state, and two-chamber systems makes more sense there. At least having two chambers elected the same way makes little sense. Than it would probably be better to abolish the upper chamber completely, like what happened in Scandinavia.

  3. avatar

    Ah yes: Australia. Forgot about that one. But the Australian parliament looks like a very complicated institutions indeed when it comes to elections and the distribution of seats.

Comments are closed.