You're looking at a very interesting topic, with good possibilities for cross-national comparison in the future. (For future reference, if you give the presentation again in the future, I think your review of theoretical importance was strong and would best be placed at the front of the presentation, right after the intro of your study.)
I think the issues to be examined are: the actors and power structure that established the existing structure, and whether that structure still exists -- since whatever configuration of elite influence caused the faulty (in the sense of the fairness of the system) structure could still have direct influence on unfair distribution of goods to small, overrepresented districts, as well as through the malapportionment as it currently stands. You can likely make the case that it does not, but you should address it.
It would also be interesting at some point in your paper to not whether the malapportionment is ever politicized as an issue in Brazil; if so, who is opposing/supporting it? If not, why not?
I was also wondering about your assertion that elections under such systems are 'free' but not 'fair.' Others may have thoughts about this, but it seems like the common interpretation of fair is that it follows commonly known rules, held to be legitimate by the people voting (is this the case?). Maybe 'ineffective' would be a better word? Of course, that doesn't get to the heart of the structure's democratic legitimacy as directly, but in terms of how we use the words, it might be clearer.
You're looking at a very interesting topic, with good possibilities for cross-national comparison in the future. (For future reference, if you give the presentation again in the future, I think your review of theoretical importance was strong and would best be placed at the front of the presentation, right after the intro of your study.)
ReplyDeleteI think the issues to be examined are: the actors and power structure that established the existing structure, and whether that structure still exists -- since whatever configuration of elite influence caused the faulty (in the sense of the fairness of the system) structure could still have direct influence on unfair distribution of goods to small, overrepresented districts, as well as through the malapportionment as it currently stands. You can likely make the case that it does not, but you should address it.
It would also be interesting at some point in your paper to not whether the malapportionment is ever politicized as an issue in Brazil; if so, who is opposing/supporting it? If not, why not?
I was also wondering about your assertion that elections under such systems are 'free' but not 'fair.' Others may have thoughts about this, but it seems like the common interpretation of fair is that it follows commonly known rules, held to be legitimate by the people voting (is this the case?). Maybe 'ineffective' would be a better word? Of course, that doesn't get to the heart of the structure's democratic legitimacy as directly, but in terms of how we use the words, it might be clearer.