DOCSLIB.ORG

Voting Matters

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Voting Matters ISSN 1745-6231 Voting matters To advance the understanding of preferential voting systems published by The McDougall Trust Issue 29 October 2011 Contents Contents Editorial . i 1 James Green-Armytage: Four Condorcet-Hare Hybrid Methods for Single-Winner Elections 1 2 I.D. Hill: Party Lists and Preference Voting 15 3 Peter Emerson: The Matrix Vote: Electing an All-Party Coalition Cabinet 20 4 Svante Janson: Another Note on the Droop Quota and Rounding 32 5 Markus Schulze: Review — Voting Theory for Democracy 35 About the McDougall Trust (reg. charity no. 212151) The McDougall Trust is a charitable trust formed in 1948. The charity’s purposes as stated in its governing scheme of 1959 are to advance knowledge of and encourage the study of and research into: • political or economic science and functions of government and the services pro- vided to the community by public and voluntary organisations; and • methods of election of and the selection and government of representative organisations whether national, civic, commercial, industrial or social. The Trust’s work includes the maintenance and development of the Lakeman Library for Electoral Studies, a unique research resource, the production and publication of Representation: The Journal of Representative Democracy, and, of course, this publica- tion Voting matters, that examines the technical issues of the single transferable vote and related electoral systems. For further information on the Trust, please contact: The Secretary, McDougall Trust, 6 Chancel Street, London SE1 0UX, UK. Telephone: +44 (0)20 7620 1080 Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7928 1528 Email: [email protected] Web: www.mcdougall.org.uk For further information on this publication, please contact Nicolaus Tideman, the Editor, at Economics Department, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg VA 24061, USA, or by email at [email protected]. CONTENTS Editorial There are five items in this issue: • The first paper, by James Green-Armytage, describes four voting procedures for electing a single candidate from ranked preferences of voters. The four procedures differ very slightly from one another, and all are notable for electing the Condorcet winner when there is one and for strongly limiting the opportun- ity to benefit from strategic voting. • In the second paper, David Hill explains the virtues, in terms of representativeness and the minimization of wasted votes, of having voters rank parties and using transfers in the vote counting, if party lists are to be used to elect a set of representatives. • In the third paper, Peter Emerson makes a case for using the matrix vote to elect a collection of leaders and, with the same ballot, to name a person to each leadership position. • The fourth paper is a discussion by Svante Janson of the virtues of using an exact Droop quota rather than a rounded Droop quota. • The fifth and final item is Markus Schulze’s review of Voting Theory for Democracy, by Thomas Colignatus. Readers are reminded that views expressed in Voting matters by contributors do not neces- sarily reflect those of the McDougall Trust or its trustees. Voting matters, Issue 29 i Four Condorcet-Hare Hybrid Methods for Single-Winner Elections James Green-Armytage The weakness of this guideline is that it does [email protected] not specify what majority rule requires when there is no Condorcet winner. For these Abstract situations, the Smith set provides a useful This paper examines four single-winner generalization of the Condorcet winner election methods, denoted here as concept. The Smith set is the smallest set Woodall, Benham, Smith-AV, and such that any candidate in would win a one- Tideman, that all make use of both on-one race against any candidate not in . Condorcet’s pairwise comparison Thus the Smith principle, which requires voting principle and Hare’s elimination and rules to select winning candidates from the reallocation principle used in the Smith set, is an extension of the Condorcet alternative vote. These methods have principle that is applicable to all election many significant properties in common, 2 including Smith efficiency and relatively outcomes. For example, suppose that A is strong resistance to strategic manipu- preferred by a majority to B, B is preferred by a lation, though they differ with regard to majority to C, C is preferred by a majority to A, the minor properties of ‘Smith-IIA’ and and all three of these candidates are preferred ‘mono-add-plump’. by majorities to D. In this case, electing A, B, or C is consistent with the majority rule 1 Introduction guideline provided by the Smith principle, but electing D is not. Several election methods have been The concept of majority rule is trickier than proposed that satisfy the Smith principle. most people realize. When there are only two Among them are ranked pairs,3 beatpath,4 candidates in an election, then its meaning is river,5 Kemeny,6 Nanson,7 and Copeland.8 quite clear: it tells us that the candidate with the However, the four methods on which this paper most votes is elected. However, when there are focuses possess another property, in addition to more than two candidates, and no single Smith efficiency, that makes them particularly candidate is the first choice of a majority, the interesting: they appear to be unusually meaning is no longer obvious. resistant to strategic manipulation. Therefore, The Condorcet principle1 offers a plausible if a society wishes to choose among multiple guideline for the meaning of majority rule in options by majority rule given one balloting, multi-candidate elections: if voters rank and if it wishes to minimize the probability that candidates in order of preference, and these rankings indicate that there is a candidate who ––––––––––––––––– would win a majority of votes in a one-on-one 2 Smith (1973) refers to his idea as a generalization race against any other candidate on the ballot (a of Condorcet consistency. 3 Defined in Tideman (1987). Condorcet winner), then we may interpret 4 ‘majority rule’ as requiring his election. Defined in Schulze (2003). 5 Defined in Heitzig (2004). 6 Defined in Kemeny (1959). ––––––––––––––––– 7 See Tideman (2006), page 201–203. 1 Condorcet (1785) defines this principle. 8 Defined in Copeland (1951). 1 James Green-Armytage: Condorcet-Hare Hybrid Methods voters will have an incentive to behave voters who rank candidate ahead of candidate strategically, these methods are worthy of . If , then pairwise-beats . strong consideration. These four methods also share the character- Condorcet winner: A candidate who wins all istic of employing the ‘Hare principle’, that is, of his pairwise comparisons. Formally, is a the principle of eliminating the candidate with Condorcet winner if and only if the fewest first-choice votes and reallocating ,. 9 those votes to other candidates. Condorcet method: Any single-winner voting I will use the names Woodall, Benham, rule that always elects the Condorcet winner Smith-AV, and Tideman to refer to these rules, when one exists. as they do not have standard names. They are deeply similar to one another and will choose Majority rule cycle: A situation in which each the same winner in the vast majority of cases, of the candidates suffers at least one pairwise but they are not identical. The purpose of this defeat, so that there is no Condorcet winner. paper is to provide a solid understanding of Formally, , : . how these methods work, how they differ from The Alternative Vote (AV):11 The candidate one another, and how they compare to other with the fewest first choice votes (ballots single-winner methods. ranking the candidate above all others in the race) is eliminated. The process is repeated 2 Preliminary Definitions until only one candidate remains. Formally, in each round 1,…,1, we Assume that there are candidates and perform the following operations: voters. Let be a tiebreaking vector that gives 1 0 a unique score 0,1 to each candidate , : 0 ,,. 1,…,; can be random, predetermined, or determined by a tie-breaking ranking of ∑ ,. candidates.10 Let be a vector of candidate argmin. ∞. Ω . eliminations, such that is initially set to zero for each candidate 1,…,. Let denote After round 1, argmin, and Ω . the winning candidate. Let be the utility of Here, is a by matrix indicating voter for candidate . Let be the ranking that voter gives to candidate (such that individual voters’ top choices. is a length- lower-numbered rankings are better). All vector of the candidates’ first choice vote totals, voting methods described in this paper, with the which incorporates the unique fractional values exception of approval voting and range voting, in the tiebreaking vector in order to ensure begin with the voters ranking the candidates in that there will not be a tie for plurality loser. order of preference. Infinity can be added to the values of eliminated candidates to prevent them from Pairwise comparison: An imaginary head-to- being identified as the plurality loser in head contest between two candidates, in which subsequent rounds. The vector Ω gives an each voter is assumed to vote for the candidate ‘elimination score’ for each candidate, which whom he gives a better ranking to. Formally, will be used by the Woodall method. let ∑ 1 be the number of Smith set:12 Or, the ‘minimal dominant set’. The smallest set of candidates such that every ––––––––––––––––– 9 Thomas Hare offered the first voting procedure that ––––––––––––––––– included the iterative transfer of votes from plurality 11 Also known as instant runoff voting (IRV) and as losers to candidates ranked next on ballots. See the Hare method, the alternative vote (AV) is the Hoag and Hallett (1926, 162–95). The first person application of proportional representation by the to apply the ‘Hare principle’ to the election of a single transferable vote (STV) to the case of electing single candidate was Robert Ware, in 1871.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Politician Overboard: Jumping the Party Ship
    INFORMATION, ANALYSIS AND ADVICE FOR THE PARLIAMENT INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES Research Paper No. 4 2002–03 Politician Overboard: Jumping the Party Ship DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY ISSN 1328-7478 Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2003 Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties. This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian government document. IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of the public. Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2003 I NFORMATION AND R ESEARCH S ERVICES Research Paper No. 4 2002–03 Politician Overboard: Jumping the Party Ship Sarah Miskin Politics and Public Administration Group 24 March 2003 Acknowledgments I would like to thank Martin Lumb and Janet Wilson for their help with the research into party defections in Australia and Cathy Madden, Scott Bennett, David Farrell and Ben Miskin for reading and commenting on early drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Proportionally Representative Participatory Budgeting with Ordinal Preferences
    The Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-21) Proportionally Representative Participatory Budgeting with Ordinal Preferences Haris Aziz and Barton E. Lee UNSW Sydney and Data61 CSIRO [email protected], [email protected] Abstract years, some PB applications have shifted to requiring linear order inputs. For example, in the New South Wales state of Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic paradigm Australia, participants are asked to provide a partial strict whereby voters decide on a set of projects to fund with a lim- 1 ited budget. We consider PB in a setting where voters report ranking over projects. The PB model we consider encom- ordinal preferences over projects and have (possibly) asym- passes both approval ballots and linear order inputs. metric weights. We propose proportional representation ax- In most of the PB settings considered, the participants are ioms and clarify how they fit into other preference aggre- assumed to have the same weight. However, in many sce- gation settings, such as multi-winner voting and approval- narios, symmetry may be violated. For example, in liquid based multi-winner voting. As a result of our study, we also democracy or proxy voting settings, a voter could be voting discover a new solution concept for approval-based multi- on behalf of several voters so may have much more voting winner voting, which we call Inclusion PSC (IPSC). IPSC weight. Similarly, asymmetric weights may naturally arise if is stronger than proportional justified representation (PJR), PB is used in settings where voters have contributed differ- incomparable to extended justified representation (EJR), and ent amounts to a collective budget or voters are affected by yet compatible with EJR.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Representatives Practice
    15 Questions One of the more important functions of the House is its critical review function. This includes scrutiny of the Executive Government, bringing to light issues and perceived deficiencies or problems, ventilating grievances, exposing, and thereby preventing the Government from exercising, arbitrary power, and pressing the Government to take remedial or other action. Questions are a vital element in this function. It is fundamental in the concept of responsible government that the Executive Government be accountable to the House. The capacity of the House of Representatives to call the Government to account depends, in large measure, on its knowledge and understanding of the Government’s policies and activities. Questions without notice and on notice (questions in writing) play an important part in this quest for information. QUESTION TIME The accountability of the Government is demonstrated most clearly and publicly at Question Time when, for a period (currently usually over an hour) on most sitting days, questions without notice are put to Ministers.1 The importance of Question Time is demonstrated by the fact that at no other time in a normal sitting day is the House so well attended. Question Time is usually an occasion of special interest not only to Members themselves but to the news media, the radio and television broadcast audience and visitors to the public galleries. It is also a time when the intensity of partisan politics can be clearly manifested. The purpose of questions is ostensibly to seek information or press for action.2 However, because public attention focuses so heavily on Question Time it is often a time for political opportunism.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Studies GA 3: Written Examination
    Political Studies GA 3: Written examination GENERAL COMMENTS In the 2001 Political Studies Examination the overall standard of answers was good. Responses to Section A the short-answer questions were generally of a higher standard than the essay responses in Section B. There was a significant number of students who clearly had a very good grasp of the subject matter covered in this course. However, many students wrote essays which were comparatively poor. Such essays were often too brief, failed to answer the question and did not present sufficiently detailed discussion of the major issues in the question. Students need more practice at analysing essay questions and writing essays within a timeframe similar to that in the November examination. Many students did not select four short-answer questions and answered parts of or all of five questions. Students were clearly instructed to answer four questions and only four questions in part A. Some of the responses in the short answer questions were too long and detailed. Students need to be reminded that exceeding the suggested length of an answer will not necessarily mean more marks are awarded. Exceeding the suggested length of a short answer usually wastes time. SPECIFIC INFORMATION Section A – Short-answer questions Question 1 – The Australian Constitution a. Identify two powers given to the High Court. High Court powers include: • hearing and determining appeals on cases determined in lower courts • interpreting the Constitution (including determining if legislation is constitutional) • trying treason cases • resolving legal disputes involving treaties or affecting representatives of other countries • resolving constitutional disputes • resolving disputes between states.
    [Show full text]
  • Inside Parliament Secondary Workbook
    INSIDE THE PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA ACTIVITY WORKBOOK (Secondary) PRE-VISIT ACTIVITY ONE A Quiz Here is a quiz about the Parliament of Victoria. See how many of these questions you can answer now. Then answer them again after the visit, to see if you have increased your knowledge about the Parliament. WHO IS THE PREMIER? WHat party IS HE/SHE IN? WHO IS THE LEADER OF THE OppoSitioN? WHicH party IS HE/SHE IN? WHat IS A MINISTER? NaME THREE MINISTERS. WHat IS A SHADow MiNISTER? NaME THREE SHADow MINISTERS. WHat IS A backbENCHER? WHat DOES ParLiaMENT DO? WHat arE THE two HOUSES OF ParLiaMENT caLLED? WHO arE yoUR StatE MEMBERS OF ParLiaMENT? (yoU HavE 6) WHat IS yoUR STATE ELEctoraL DiStrict? WHat IS yoUR STATE ELEctoraL REGioN? WHat arE two IMportaNT JOBS yoUR MPS DO? 22 INSIDE THE PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA ACTIVITY WORKBOOK ACTIVITY TWO PRE-VISIT The Vestibule The Vestibule is the area just inside the front door of Parliament House. 1 Look at the motto in the Vestibule. Complete the missing words here: “WHERE NO__ __ __ __ __ __ __ IS, THE PEOPLE __ __ __ __, BUT IN THE __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ OF COUNSELLORS THERE IS __ __ __ __ __ __.” (You will be able to talk about what this means back in class.) 2 What do you think this motto means? Tick one of these: ADviSORS NEED to BE carEFUL aboUT WHat THEY TELL PEOPLE to DO IF THERE arE too MANY ADviSORS PEOPLE wiLL BE coNFUSED AND wiLL Not BE abLE to DEciDE WHEN THERE arE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE GiviNG ADvicE THEN GooD DEciSioNS wiLL BE MADE 3 How is this motto a symbol for democracy? 4 How is it a symbol for representative government? INSIDE THE PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA ACTIVITY WORKBOOK 23 PRE-VISIT ACTIVITY THREE Meet Your MPs There are three levels of government in Australia: COMMONWEALTH or FEDERAL – for laws that apply to all of Australia STATE – for laws that apply only to a State or Territory LOCAL – for laws that apply only to a local area There is a chance that you will see Members of Parliament in Parliament House during sitting periods.
    [Show full text]
  • Ministerial Careers and Accountability in the Australian Commonwealth Government / Edited by Keith Dowding and Chris Lewis
    AND MINISTERIAL CAREERS ACCOUNTABILITYIN THE AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT AND MINISTERIAL CAREERS ACCOUNTABILITYIN THE AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT Edited by Keith Dowding and Chris Lewis Published by ANU E Press The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at http://epress.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Ministerial careers and accountability in the Australian Commonwealth government / edited by Keith Dowding and Chris Lewis. ISBN: 9781922144003 (pbk.) 9781922144010 (ebook) Series: ANZSOG series Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Subjects: Politicians--Australia. Politicians--Australia--Ethical behavior. Political ethics--Australia. Politicians--Australia--Public opinion. Australia--Politics and government. Australia--Politics and government--Public opinion. Other Authors/Contributors: Dowding, Keith M. Lewis, Chris. Dewey Number: 324.220994 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU E Press Printed by Griffin Press This edition © 2012 ANU E Press Contents 1. Hiring, Firing, Roles and Responsibilities. 1 Keith Dowding and Chris Lewis 2. Ministers as Ministries and the Logic of their Collective Action . 15 John Wanna 3. Predicting Cabinet Ministers: A psychological approach ..... 35 Michael Dalvean 4. Democratic Ambivalence? Ministerial attitudes to party and parliamentary scrutiny ........................... 67 James Walter 5. Ministerial Accountability to Parliament ................ 95 Phil Larkin 6. The Pattern of Forced Exits from the Ministry ........... 115 Keith Dowding, Chris Lewis and Adam Packer 7. Ministers and Scandals .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Questions
    About Parliament - Sheet 22 Parliamentary Questions Parliamentary questions are an important means Questions without Notice used by members of Parliament to ensure the (Question Time) government is accountable for its policies and actions to the Parliament and, through the Parliament, to the Questions without Notice are asked orally by people. Opposition or Government backbench members during Question Time in the House. Question Time is In the parliamentary chambers, questions are used a set part of each sitting day, and occurs in both by members on both sides of the house to ask a houses. minister about matters of concern relating to government policy within the minister’s portfolio. In the Legislative Assembly, ministers are asked Questions may also be asked of a member regarding questions for approximately 45 minutes every sitting any matter connected with the business of the house day starting at 2.00 pm or shortly thereafter. for which the member has charge, and also to a In the Legislative Council, Question Time typically member chairing a committee. takes place for approximately 30 minutes starting at 4.30 pm each sitting day. Questions must conform to the rules or the Standing Orders of each house. The Speaker in the Legislative Question Time is one of the liveliest times in a Assembly and the President in the Legislative Council parliamentary sitting day. Generally all members are may disallow or edit a question that is considered to in attendance in the house at this time, when current not conform to the house’s Standing Orders. issues are raised. For this reason, Question Time attracts media attention, with televised extracts Questions asked of a minister must be brief, must not being regularly used in television news programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Majority, Grand Or All-Party Coalitions?
    International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences Online: 2014-03-02 ISSN: 2300-2697, Vol. 23, pp 90-109 doi:10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.23.90 CC BY 4.0. Published by SciPress Ltd, Switzerland, 2014 Majority, grand or all-party coalitions? Peter Emerson The de Borda Institute, 36 Ballysillan Road, Belfast BT14 7QQ, Northern Ireland E-mail address: [email protected] ABSTRACT By what principle does one majority have the right to rule, and another not? Secondly, while elections are generally transparent, why should forming a government be secretive? Is it because people believe, not only in majority rule, which may be fine, but also in (simple or weighted) majority voting, which is not so good? There are, after all, other more accurate voting systems by which can be identified the will of the majority; some of these latter methodologies are non-majoritarian. Now, if decision-making were to be based on a non-majoritarian voting procedure, the right to majority rule might be brought into question; indeed, majoritarianism might become obsolescent. Other forms of governance should therefore also be examined. Accordingly, this paper considers first, some of the deficiencies of a majoritarian polity; next, a more inclusive form of decision-making; then, majoritarian and non-majoritarian types of governance; and lastly, a voting system by which a parliament may elect a national government. Keywords: Consensus; consensors; modified Borda count (MBC); power-sharing; all-party coalition; matrix vote Abbreviations AGM annual general meeting
    [Show full text]
  • QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES HANDBOOK Introduction
    QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES HANDBOOK Introduction The Queensland Parliamentary Procedures handbook is designed to inform Ministers, other Members of the Legislative Assembly and departmental officers of the various procedures associated with the major functions of the Parliament. In particular, departmental officers will value the information provided about the legislative process, the tabling of papers and reports, and interaction with parliamentary committees. The handbook can be accessed on the Queensland Parliament website at: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-assembly/procedures. Enquiries about the Parliamentary Procedures Handbook The Clerk of the Parliament Parliament House Queensland [email protected] August 2020 The Queensland Parliamentary Procedures Handbook Contents 1.0 Definition of Parliament and the functions of the Legislative Assembly .............................. 1 1.1 Definition of Parliament ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Overview of the functions of the Legislative Assembly ............................................................................ 1 1.3 Supply, confidence and government ........................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Legislative function ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Financial control ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Procedural Digest 22 23 24 25 26 No
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July/August 2019 M T W T F Procedural Digest 22 23 24 25 26 No. 2 29 30 31 1 2 46th Parliament 22 July – 1 August 2019 Selected entries contain links to video footage via Parlview. Please note that the first time you click a [Watch] link, you may need to refresh the page (ctrl+F5) for the correct starting point. Bills 2.01 Presentation of first bill to incoming Governor-General The Speaker informed the House that, on 5 July, he had personally presented the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Relief So Working Australians Keep More Of Their Money) Bill 2019 to the Governor-General for royal assent. It is customary for the Speaker, the Clerk of the House and usually the Attorney-General to attend a small ceremony at Government House during which the first bill is presented for assent to a new Governor-General. His Excellency the Honourable David Hurley AC DSC (Retd) was sworn in as Australia’s 27th Governor-General on 28 June 2019. Hansard: 22 July 2019, 491-2 Votes and Proceedings: 2019/81 SO 175 2.02 Consideration of Future Drought Fund Bills During government business time on 22 July, the Manager of Opposition Business, by leave, moved a motion that called on the Government to adjourn debate on the Future Drought Fund Bill 2019 and Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019, following the Minister’s speech on the second reading. The question was put and negatived on division. The Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management then asked leave to present the Future Drought Fund Bill 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Post-Colonial Political Institutions in the South Pacific Islands: a Survey
    2. Post-Colonial Political Institutions in the South Pacific Islands: A Survey Jon Fraenkel Vue d’ensemble des Institutions politiques postcoloniales dans le Pacifique Sud insulaire A partir du milieu des années 80 et jusqu’à la fin des années 90, les nouveaux pays du Pacifique sortaient d’une période postcoloniale marquée au début par l’optimisme et dominée par une génération de dirigeants nationaux à la tête d’un régime autoritaire pour connaître par la suite une période marquée par les difficultés et l’instabilité et qui a connu le coup d’Etat de Fidji de 1987, la guerre civile à Bougainville, le conflit néo-calédonien et l’instabilité gouvernementale au Vanuatu et ailleurs. Dans les pays de la Mélanésie occidentale, cette instabilité a été exacerbée par des pressions exercées par des sociétés minières et des sociétés forestières étrangères. Cette étude retrace l’évolution et explore les complexités des diverses institutions politiques postcoloniales dans le Pacifique Sud à la fois au sein de ces institutions et dans leurs relations entre elles ; elle montre que les questions de science politique classique ont été abordées de façons extrêmement différentes dans la région. On y trouve une gamme de systèmes électoraux comprenant à la fois des régimes présidentiels et des régimes parlementaires ainsi que des situations de forte intégration d’un certain nombre de territoires au sein de puissances métropolitaines. Entre les deux extrêmes de l’indépendance totale et de l’intégration, les îles du Pacifique sont le lieu où l’on trouve un éventail d’arrangements politiques hybrides entre les territoires insulaires et les anciennes puissances coloniales.
    [Show full text]
  • PROCEDURAL DIGEST No. 41
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 2014 M T W T F 12 13 14 15 16 Procedural Digest No. 116 13–15 May 2014 Bills 116.01 Presentation of first bill for assent by incoming Governor-General The Speaker informed the House that on 28 March 2014 she had personally presented the Farm Household Support Bill 2014 to the Governor-General for royal assent. Note: It is customary for the Speaker, the Clerk of the House and usually the Attorney-General to attend a small ceremony at Government House during which the first bill is presented for assent to a new Governor-General. His Excellency the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd) was sworn in as Australia’s 26th Governor-General on 28 March 2014. Hansard: 13 May 2014, 3501 Votes and Proceedings: 2014/451 SO 175 116.02 Presentation of 2014-2015 Budget On Tuesday 13 May, after a suspension of sitting from 6.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m., the Speaker reported a message from the Governor-General recommending an appropriation for the purposes of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015. The Treasurer then presented Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014, moved the second reading and delivered the budget speech. Debate was then adjourned and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer presented documents in connection with the Budget. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance then presented Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015; Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015; Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2013-2014; and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-14.
    [Show full text]