[roastpuff]

Hi guys, I'm working on my strategy of politics essay right now, and I have to admit that I'm a bit stumped regarding the question's request to create a model.

Here is the question: Quote:

Francis Hincks’ views on the double-majority majority are interesting. On one hand, Hincks, a long-serving minister and premier, had commented that the principle was “exceedingly desirable in practical politics, but quite absurd as a constitutional requirement.” On the other hand, when forced from government to opposition in 1844, Hincks wrote to Baldwin: “You are, of course, aware of how strongly Lafontaine holds to the principle of the two majorities, and to the federal system as Wakefield calls it. I think this is quite absurd... Nevertheless, I would have no objections to see it [the double majority principle] tried. It is a do-nothing policy that would serve us...” (Longley 1943, 146). Develop a one-dimensional spatial model that helps to explain why Hinck’s opposed the double-majority principle when he was in government and supported it when he was in opposition.

Now, this apparently also has to do with the political theory of the median voter as well.

The idea that I have for a one-dimensional spatial model is something like this:

I was just wondering if anyone could confirm that the model is in the correct direction, and if I should remember anything especially important regarding the situation and the median voter theorem.

Thanks!

 

[Lazarus Short]

Roastpuff, I read your post, and feel as I did in a few college classes when I had not taken the pre-requisites first - that is to say, lost. Maybe lay us some groundwork first...? Explain the diagram a bit?

Laz

 

[hanalei mike]

No, it's perfect. vive le Jean Chretien