"Robert J. Chassell" wrote:
> Should international legislation be based on the current UN two-fold
> system in which, on the one hand, individual states, no matter how
> small, have one vote when they become temporary members of the UN
> Security Council; but which other states are permanent members and
> have a "states' right" of veto?
>
> A disadvantage of a system like this is that it is hard to adjust to
> changes in relative power. Some have said that World War I occurred
> because Great Britain, France, and Russia were not willing to give
> peacefully some of their power to newcomer Germany.
>
> Or should decision making be based on population, so that China and
> India, gain power, and smaller states, like France or the US, have
> less? The `one adult, one vote' method enjoys widespread legitimacy.
>
> Or should decision making be based on the amount of taxes paid, so
> that wealthier countries receive overt power in proportion, more or
> less, to their actual power?
>
> Or should decison making occur in a two `house' legislature, in which
> one house is based on population, and another is based on the amount
> of taxes a state pays to the new government?
>
> An advantage of a population and tax-based allocation of power is that
> states can adjust relatively simply to changes in their relative
> population or economic power.
>
> Under a population-based power distribution, France would receive less
> than 1% of the total, the US would receive about 5% and China about
> 20%.
>
> Under a tax-based power distribution, the US would receive 23% of the
> total, if it paid taxes according to the current apportionment for UN
> dues. I could not find dues info on the UN Web site, but France has a
> GDP about 1/6 the size of the US and China has one that is perhaps
> 1/10 the size of the US. Based on these figures, France would receive
> less than 4% of the power and China less than 3%.
>
> Or should another criterion be used to allocate power? If so what?
>
> What do you think?
I like the idea of some sort of bicameral body. I'd want one to be "one
nation, one seat".
What would a tricameral body look like? I'm thinking of one with "one
nation, one seat" in one house, representation proportional to population a
second, and the third with representation based on the resources poured into
the body. What would the responsibilities of each be?
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
