This should not be a surprise: the conventional ‘upper’ and the Dutch ‘first’ adjectives are both remnants of the pre-democratic view on the merits of the less democratic part of a bicameral parliament.

In Perú, political parties are required by law to present detailed platforms prior to elections. Unfortunately, nothing obliges them to actually follow them after the election, and in any event the inevitable constellation of coalition parties would make following any one platform impossible. (Presumably the latter effect also operates in the Netherlands.) Still, I can’t help thinking that it’s a good idea that someone takes such documents seriously.

I gather that the VVD is advocating reducing the size of parliament by one-third (150 to 100 in the “second chamber” — the one elected directly — and 75 to 50 in the “first chamber”), while the PVV would go even further by removing the first chamber altogether, but I couldn’t find any rationale for these platforms, other than an appeal to smaller government and less overhead. (But I didn’t look too hard; Google Translate is too painful.)

Enabling or requiring the Democrats and Republicans to submit their economic claims to, say, the CBO would be a rough equivalent. But no doubt Paul Ryan’s marathon times and number of Colorado mountains climbed are or more significance to the polity and the economy.