Set-aside quotas in elected bodies, present and future

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


As it is, nearly all countries have top-level elected bodies which are filled based on geographical quotas. A few countries have, or have had, legally codified quotas based on other characteristics - gender (can´t remember which countries), job (Nepal), Ethnic group (South Africa).

The geographical quota system is so prevalent so that it often is not recognized as a quota system. Gender quotas have been suggested in several countries, and have come reasonably close to legal enshrinement in some of them. However, those gender quotas generally - post a counterexample if you know one - differ in one inportant aspect from the geographical quotas.

Geographical quotas almost always are structured so that:

1. The places allotted to each geographical area is roughly proportional to the population of that area.
2. Voters are only permitted to vote for candidates from their own geographical area.

Suggested gender quotas, OTOH, are intended to follow the rule:
1. Eeach gender gets allotted places in rough proportion to its total numbers.

I have never seen any suggestion for a rule stating that men are only allowed to vote for male candidates, and vice versa.

Why this discrepancy? If one is to have have quota systems, it is not best to be consistent?

Personally, I dislike all kind of rules limiting which candidate I may vote for. I agree that geographical quotas are good, since pork barrel and their opposites will be channeled to/stuck upon places solely based on the homeplaces of the elected, not on their merit.

From there is does not follow that voters must be limited to vote for candidates in their own place, even if the one-person-one-vote rule is to be adhered to. It is entirely possible to have voting rules such that voters have complete freedom to vote for any candidate, but that each geographical area gets elected politicians in proportion to its population.

Please post your thoughts and opinions!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[jBirch]

I always wondered about economic quotas in addition to population and geographic quotas. Though this ends up happening by persuasion and corruption, I'd prefer it to be out in the open and have a rational place in our political landscape.

The only one that was like that was the old British House of Lords.

James.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Most European countries have had a house of Lords at one time. Come to think of it, the Chief Pleas of the fiefdom of Sark could be thought of parliament still based on ownership.


That said, if one has many quota dimensions (political/geographical/gender/financial/etc) it will be exceedingly difficult to construct a system which ensures good proportionality under all circumstances. Any ideas?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


I was going to post a new thread, but remembered that I had written one a long time ago which was reasonably close in topic.

In Tracy´s recent thread, the issue of ensuring a say for fencer parents via a voting system was brought up. Tracy requested to have that subtopic taken out of her thread, so here it is.

Presently, both USFA and FIE have geographical quotas in their voted/legislative bodies. The Swedish Fencing Federation (SvFF) has a system where clubs get votes in rough proportion to their memberships, and regional fencing federations get 2 votes each.

However, I know of no fencing organization which has set-aside quotas in its legislative body which are based on anything else than geography. (Exception: The nomination committee of the SvFF has 3 members, and by rule laid down by the Swedish Sports Federation at least one must be of either gender.) One could imagine several stakeholders which could have a legitimate case for a quota: parents, high-level fencers, gender quotas, club owners, referees, etc. However, with many recognized quotas, the system becomes unwieldy, so one has to draw the line somewhere.

So, how does one decide which of those groups which want to have a quota for themselves should have one? What criteria should one use to discern those who should have, from those who should not? How does one keep such descisions principle-based, and from delving into a morass of all interested parties only fighting for their own limited interests, with no regard or the greater good of fencing?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson