FEDERALISM AND THE ‘ONE-PERSON ONE-VOTE PRINCIPLE’: POLITICAL ACCOMMODATION IN CYPRUS AND THE ANNAN PLAN
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ‘one-person one-vote principle’ (OPOV) seems to be an intuitively appealing principle, one that is procedurally fair by ensuring equality in votes for all and contributes to the proper functioning of democratic states. Although commonly cited as a cornerstone of democracy, this article argues that OPOV can be a dangerous principle in societies divided by group conflict. Minorities face permanent exclusion, and thus cannot protect their own interests, leading to resentment and destabilization. Moreover, deviation from OPOV is not uncommon in political accommodation, especially in federal arrangements. Opponents of deviation argue that it is both undemocratic and dysfunctional having potentially damaging implications for reconciliation. This article examines these claims in the case of Cyprus under the federal arrangements of the Annan plan. After discussing federalism and Cypriot politics, the article analyses philosophical and international positions on deviation from OPOV in order to assess whether deviation can be considered undemocratic, arguing that whilst not always procedurally fair or equal, deviation should be considered democratic if it encourages the effective participation of minorities. The article then examines the provisions within the Annan Plan to argue that its deviations from the OPOV principle do not hinder its functionality. The article concludes by arguing federalism and deviation from OPOV encourage political accommodation and offer the best chance of reconciliation between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it