CNY readings

Actually, although the current consti readings are... not bad, they start to blur together after a while. I mean, read one critic, you've read them all; academics on constitutional law in my country don't really have radically different viewpoints. And reading about the constitution is just arghh. There's a deep sense of unreality, I think, because the constitution has been changed loads of time, and while reading in the parts we've been concentrating on, there's a vague sense of disquiet and maybe even injustice. I mean, I concede (sorta) the reasoning on stuff like nominated MPs and non-constituency (even typing this is painful) MPs but a part of my brain is still, like, this isn't how the world is supposed to work! So yeah.

Also, I dunno how to frame this question, so I'll just try to describe it. Since the last election when the opposition parties won a big fraction of votes in some constituencies (must create a shortcut for typing 'constituencies') but since most of the time, they still lost to the dominant party, under the first-past-the post system we has - I keep thinking, let's argue the merits of this system some other time, ok? - so it turns out there is a very small number of opposition MPs in parliament. Ok, in absolute numbers the opposition got 30-40% of the votes but less than 10% of the seats. Yes, there's something rather unsatisfactory about the result when you see it in this way.

But how is it that that has become a reason to criticise the system? If it's a sign of a deeper flaw in the system, then say so. But because the results don't jell with the perception of "fairness", it can't be the reason that the system is flawed? When we've been having this system all along? And it's never been brought up before? I dunno. ...I have to think more about this.