[One Degree]

A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) is a proposed addition to the United Nations System that would allow for participation of member nations' legislators and, eventually, direct election of United Nations (UN) parliament members by citizens worldwide. The idea was raised at the founding of the League of Nations in the 1920s and again following the end of World War II in 1945, but remained dormant throughout the Cold War. In the 1990s and 2000s, the rise of global trade and the power of world organizations that govern it led to calls for a parliamentary assembly to scrutinize their activity.[1] The Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly was formed in 2007 to coordinate pro-UNPA efforts, which as of July 2013 has received the support of over 800 Members of Parliament from over 100 countries worldwide and is supported by over 5,000 people.[2]

Supporters have set forth possible UNPA implementations, including promulgation of a new treaty; creation of a UNPA as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly; and evolution of a UNPA from the Inter-Parliamentary Union or another nongovernmental organization. Several proposals for apportionment of votes have been raised to address disparities in UN members' population and economic power. CEUNPA advocates initially giving the UNPA advisory powers and gradually increasing its authority over the UN system. Opponents cite issues such as funding, voter turnout, and undemocratic UN member nations as reasons for abandoning the project altogether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... y_Assembly

Do you see this leading anywhere good?

Edit:
I guess my topic was too long. Is a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly a step in the right direction?

[UnusuallyUsual]

I think you already know my view. Of course it's positive. But the fact nobody has even heard of this means that at least so far it is severely underpowered.

[Paul Sanderson]

I'm supportive of more political integration with the rest of the world. The way they implement it is going to be important. It was kind of vague with its remark about how "several proposals for apportionment of votes have been raised to address disparities in UN members' population and economic power". I'm thinking the United States and Europe aren't going to be too impressed with the amount of clout a growing China allied with Russia and others would have in an organisation like that.

For all its faults, the European Union had a reasonable system in place where a select few countries formed the basis of the organisation and others were added as time went on (depending on their economy and political record). The speed and ease with which you could put down rogue states would be massively increased, as would the reconstruction effort as well.

One major advantage would be the harmonisation of economic regulation. Currently, we might have certain countries interested in the idea of nationalisation or the reigning in of massive corporations and banks but are unwilling to do so because of the fear of these corporations relocating to areas where the regulatory climate is more favourable. If there was agreement across the board on these issues it wouldn't be such a problem.

[UnusuallyUsual]

Right, the idea of a strict majority vote by countries deciding major issues enforceable and applicable to the entire world probably scares the crap out of the minority elite who currently rule everything.

Although I have to admit, I still don't think we should be counting things by "countries". Which is why breaking it down more in terms of population size is a MUCH better idea.

How does EVERY single Parliament in the world operate? Based on population size equating to political power. So yes this would massively empower China and India for sure (not to mention Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Vietnam, Phillipines, Brazil). It would massively depower places like Denmark though. Unless instead of purely based on a ratio of X number of human beings gives 1 Global Parliament seat they somehow accounted for the wealth of those humans. That would be regressive though, taking a step back in theory of democracy, away from universal suffrage and more into the old "Landed Gentry Only" type of "democracies".

[One Degree]

"several proposals for apportionment of votes have been raised to address disparities in UN members' population and economic power"

This is the part that bothers me the most also. It continues the power of the major countries, which ultimately undermines the whole purpose.
I, of course, would be in favor of one vote for each country. Think how fast major countries would begin breaking up. They would think it would give them more votes, but in actuality, I believe the new countries would go their own way.

I definitely would not want to see represntation based upon population. We do not need to encourage an increase in population.