Talk:List of legislatures by country

I'm thinking of a list of national executives to go with this. Not sure what to include though - maybe something like

Country	Head of State	Head of Government	Cabinet	Foreign Secretary	Finance Secretary
United Kingdom	King	Prime Minister	Cabinet	Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs	Chancellor of the Exchequer
United States	President		Cabinet	Secretary of State	Secretary of the Treasury

The idea being it would link to the offices, not the people

Maybe we should link cabinets too. I don't think we want any more offices though. Of course, this will be even more crazy for libya/iran/north korea etc ;)

Morwen 23:22, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. I could see a Summary of Current Governmental Systems or some other similar title as being useful. I'd envision something more like the following, based on your suggestion, with details certainly only preliminary, but with more focus on systems and less on ministers, which strike me as pretty boring (just about every country has a foreign secretary or secretary of state or whatnot that is mostly analogous to that of every other country):

Country/Territory	Status	System	Head of State	Head of Government	Legislature
United Kingdom	sovereign	constitutional monarchy	British Monarch	Prime Minister of the UK	Parliament of the UK
Greenland	self-governing dependency of Denmark	constitutional monarchy	Danish Monarch	Prime Minister of Greenland	Landsting

I'll go with that, as long as a Cabinet column is added. Morwen 23:34, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not averse to that, but I'm wondering what's interesting about it. Aren't they all basically Cabinet of Country? Or are there some countries with more interesting cabinet systems? --Delirium 23:45, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Yes - they are not very interesting, but it's a page of links, after all. Rather this than a separate list of cabinets. ;) Morwen 23:47, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, well, in either case, perhaps we should have a second list with a lot more officials. There's a lot of useful information such a table could have, but it's nearly impossible to fit into one table, without making it either 3 pages wide or with really skinny impossible-to-read columns. --Delirium 23:50, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

there needs to be clear guidlines on what dependencies to include, or else the list would get too long. I would leave dependencies out entirely. They're a separate category from sovereign states. --Jiang 08:20, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There's no need to duplicate lists - listing all the legislatures again would be unnecessary. --Jiang 21:56, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Move

I moved this page back as no explanation was given to move it in the first place. --Jiang 16:56, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I had merged the (shorter) list at parliament into this one, see the editing note. -- User:Docu

But still, many of those listed there were already listed here. What's wrong with legislature? --Jiang

I had changed it as parliament may be the more comprehensive term. Not all chambers of parliament necessarily legislate, nor all legislatures (such as general assemblies) are parliaments. In general, both terms should be fine though. -- User:Docu

Including/Excluding dependencies

Should non-sovereign states be included in this table?

I listed the Pitcairn Islands Council, but was told that dependencies are not listed here. I notice, however, that such dependencies as Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, and Puerto Rico are listed, whereas other dependencies like Gibraltar, Norfolk Island, and American Samoa are not.

I am of the opinion that we should have uniform rules.

On my talk page, Jiang suggested the use of italics to mark out the dependencies - I agree that that idea is a very good one. Two other ideas that I have thought of are (a) to list the dependencies in a separate table beneath the main one, or (b) to make a separate page for them, with a link to to from this page.

What do all of you think?David Cannon 03:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So far, nobody has commented on my suggestions. I'll wait a couple of days, but if nobody objects (or comes up with alternative ideas), I think I might create a separate table at the bottom of the page for dependencies. The Isle of Man, Puerto Rico, etc. can be moved there, and some others added. David Cannon 21:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

sounds like a good plan... --Jiang 03:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits by user:Alanmak

Re: [1] - The current convention here on this page is not to restrict to sovereign states. Nevertheless user:Alanmak removed Hong Kong and Macao (both special administrative regions of the People's Republic of China, and former posessions of the UK and Portugal respectively). While not commenting who's right and who's wrong, what user:Alanmak employed was a different way of interpreting the word national. If there's a problem with this word, we may think about changing the page title as list of legislatures by country, in line with many other similar by-country lists on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 08:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with that. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Alanmak's edits. The legislatures of Hong Kong and Macao are not national legislatures and they ansewer to the legislature of the People's Republic of China. – Zntrip 04:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They do not. The legislatures of HK and MO exercise effective autonomy/sovereignty over all non-foreign/defense affairs. Most laws passed by the National People's Congress in Beijing do not apply in HK and MO, while laws passed by the Legislative Council of either HK or MO cannot be overriden by the NPC unless it pertains to an interpretation of the Basic Laws.--Jiang 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cannot? How's that direct voting in 2008 campaign getting along then? SchmuckyTheCat 06:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That was based on a NPC interpretation of the Basic Law. That does not have to do with ordinary legislation. A law passed by the US Congress, if it contradicts with a California state law or even the California state constitution, will override the state law. On the other hand, a law (as in ordinary legislation, not an interpretation) passed by the NPC does not override a law passed by the LegCo if they contradict--it most likely will not apply at all.--Jiang 08:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not ordinary legislation, but they've shown they can make "interpretations" whenever they want about pretty much anything. It's obvious LegCo may have lots of free reign, but they are not independent, not the highest decision making body in their territory, and certainly not national. BTW, you're incorrect about US state sovereignty as well. The SCOTUS docket is always full of states issues. States rights vs federal powers has been and always will be a fluid demarcation in the US. SchmuckyTheCat 15:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In both cases, you're dealing with fundamental constitutional issues. In that case, the US congress is not independent, since SCOTUS can declare its laws unconstitutional. Under the same logic, most of the legislatures (not parliaments) would not belong on this list. --Jiang 22:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(response to user:SchmuckyTheCat's comment at 15:29, May 3) Yes the NPCSC can interpret the basic laws of Hong Kong and Macao, but in what way does it affect the listings of Hong Kong and Macao here? The last remaining legislative ties between the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand parliaments with the UK Parliament were not severed until 1982 and 1986. And all the legislatures of those that are not sovereign states included in this list are not entirely independent. They're all subject to the legislatures of their corresponding sovereign states. — Instantnood 21:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Re [2] [3] [4] - The Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) is not the legislative or parliamentary organ (except for its very first session before 1954). Legislative power rests in the National People's Congress (NPC) and its Standing Committee (NPCSC). — Instantnood 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

National

National refers to a nation. Because of this, I think only the legislatures of sovereign states should be included. That would mean removing all of the dependencies. – Zntrip 22:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What of the border-line cases? Cook Islands and Niue come to mind... —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Are they realy nations? – Zntrip 22:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, they have the same status as the US associated states of Palau, Marshall Islands etc.; the only difference is that Niue and the Cook Islands don't have UN membership. They could have it if they wished, AFAIK... —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 20:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we make a list of legislatures by country, includingh all entities listed in the List of countries. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be going along with Instantnood's notion above; I'm entirely in favour. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don’t think adding dependencies is appropriate for this page. My main reason is that sub-national entities and dependencies do not have independent governments. For instance, the Island Council of Ascension Island is under the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. – Zntrip 03:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

But these dependencies have their own legal system and legislatures. I doubted about Ascension, Tristan da Cunha and the Soverign Bases, but they are included in the list of countries. Sun-national entities are only included when listed in the List of countries, I would say Aland, Kosovo and the separatist republics. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 06:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Should we add the states of the United States because they can make their own laws too? What justifies Kosovo as being its own republic anymore than California? It still is under the juristiction of the country that it is in. – Zntrip 04:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say countries like Åland, Greenland, Faroe Islands, British overseas territories, Hong Kong, Macao, US unincorporated territories, Australian external territories, etc., have to be included. Although diplomatically not recognised as such, self-declared unrecognised states are de facto independent sovereign states. The case for Kosovo (Kosovo and Metohija) is a bit tricky. It's little different from the UN trust territories established 61 years ago, except de jure it remains part of Serbia of Yugoslavia, now Serbia and Montenegro. — Instantnood 05:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 16:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

I have been thinking about some changes for this page and I would like to know what everyone thinks about them.

• Change rows in columns to the following format:

Country	Overall name of Legislature
	Lower house	Upper house

• Add flags.
• Centre the names of the houses and legislatures so that there not all to the left.

– Zntrip 23:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind, but do not really see the advantages. I do mind the flags, since it would mean a longer time to download the page. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There are advantages. For one, the page will be easier to read and it would look nicer. As for the flags, just go to list of countries, list of state leaders, or list of circulating currencies. The flags look nice on the page and even with dial-up they don’t take too long to download. – Zntrip 16:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Still I don't like the flags to be added. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 17:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the flags. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, but what about the other stuff? – Zntrip 22:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Myanmar and the PRC

Why isn’t the People's Assembly of Myanmar the national legislature? Why isn’t the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference a legislature of China? – Zntrip 22:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

the People's Assembly has never convened. the CPPCC does not legislate.--Jiang 23:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Countries vs. sovereign states

Re [5] - Why do we need different sections for countries and sovereign states? Italicising those that are not sovereign states is already adequate. I've no comment, however, regarding unrecognised by de facto independent states. — Instantnood 19:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, it should be split off to a separate article. SchmuckyTheCat 22:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

THat will only lead to extra discussions. The easiest way is to follow the List of countries. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)