Coterminous

Coterminous (pronounced koh-tur-muh-nuhs)

(1) Having the same border or covering the same area; bordering; contiguous.

(2) Being the same in extent; coextensive in range, scope, time etc.

1790–1800: A re-formation of conterminous from the Latin conterminus, the construct being con- (with) + terminus (border, end).  The prefix con- is derived from the Latin preposition cum (with).  Terminus is from the primitive Indo-European térmn̥ (boundary) of uncertain origin but perhaps from terh- (pass through).  It was cognate with the Ancient Greek τέρμα (térma) (a goal) and τέρμων (térmōn) (a border) and although contested, some etymologists suggest a relationship with the Sanskrit तरति (tar-) (to overcome), the Classical Latin trāns (through, across, over) and even possibly intrō (I enter, I go into).  Coterminal is the adjective, coterminously the adverb.

Most dictionaries insist that despite having been in use since the 1630s, the hyphenated co-terminous is a malformation but, coterminous being a rare word, it’s not often disputes arise.  Purists who prefer always to stick to the classics reject both as needless formations and prefer the original Latin: conterminous.

The advantage of being original

The constitutions of some nations were forged out of war, revolutions or long struggles between sovereign and subjects so their foundation documents, their basic law, often contain stirring words, preambles especially sometimes even with literary merit.  The Constitution of Australia is not one of those documents.  While there were arguments during the eight-odd years it took for the six self-governing British colonies to agree on a draft, the matters in dispute mostly were procedural and mercantile rather than the rights of man and the pursuit of happiness.  Things were hammered-out in committees and smoke-filled rooms, no mobs taking to the street or storming a parliament; apparently not even an effigy was burned.  The document which emerged has proved durable and adaptable but not a great read, befitting a nation which gained its independence (if originally incomplete until 1986) not through battle but bureaucracy.  The draft reached London in 1900 and was soon passed by the imperial parliament as the Constitution of Australia Act which effectively created the country, its executive, legislature and judiciary, empowering a parliament to meet.  Thus assembled, the Parliament of Australia passed the Constitution of Australia Act, becoming effective on 1 January 1901, the first day of the new century.

So Australia was born not out of struggle on streets running with blood but by a grant of freedom from a colonial oppressor which had learned the lessons of 1776.  The constitution passed has since been little modified but has accommodated some changes better to be the basic law of a place where things do change.  It tends to be forgotten that, even in 1901, anything like what’s now thought to be genuine democracy was rare anywhere and, where it existed to the extent it did, it was a recent and sometimes fragile thing.  The Australian constitution did however create a framework for one structural aspect of democracy now thought fundamental: the equality of the value of the individual citizen’s vote. 

While that didn’t apply to the upper house, that was one of the prices to pay for nationhood; the smaller states would never have agreed to federate had they not been afforded equality of representation in what they seemed genuinely to believe would be the place where their interests would be protected.  That illusion didn’t long last but the distortions, now actually worse, remain.  Regarding the lower house, Chapter I, Part III, Section 24 of the constitution provides (1) it shall have twice the number of members of the upper house and (2) the number of members in each of the six states shall be in proportion to the state’s population.  That, even today, is about as equitable as is possible but a further clause provided that (3) none of the original states can have fewer than five members, regardless of the math imposed by (1) & (2).

By the early twenty-first century, that meant in New South Wales, there was one senator for every 680,000-odd souls whereas one represented every 45,000 Tasmanians, a impressive imbalance around 85:15; in the lower house it was a much more democratic 62:38.  Better still, if ever Tasmanians feel somehow unrepresented, there’s also a state parliament with an upper and lower house and a layer of local government.  These distortions do happen in other countries (notably the United States Senate) but among those with some claim to free and fair electoral systems, the Tasmanian example is probably extreme.  In Australia, it pays to be an original state.

In that state parliament, a feature of Tasmania’s mysterious Hare-Clark electoral system for the House of Assembly (state lower house) is that its five electoral divisions are coterminous with the five House of Representatives (Commonwealth lower house) divisions (Bass, Braddon, Clark, Franklin and Lyons).  Although it may sound a rare example of bureaucratic efficiency, it’s dictated more by the practicalities of the multi-member Hare-Clark system.