Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
It is quite common for legislative bodies to sit in "semi circles".
I can see how, for historical reasons, this shape was optimal for hearing clearly in a large room, however this needs not be so in the present day and age.
This "strip-like" configuration arguably also lead to the concept of left and right and of two political "poles".
Why, then, do we keep on using this seating structure? Are there any countries that experimented with different seating shapes and with what results?
The answer is very short but the reasons are:
In theory when a speaker reads his speeches on the tribune, the speaker represents a portion of the "people", and because of that He deserves respect from his colleagues (other speakers), so a good way to do that is pointing all the seats in direction to the tribune.
The acoustic reason, is because they try to imitate or simulate a the Greek Theater, where the sound is distributed uniformly along all the seats and the last user (in this case another speaker) can listen what the other speaker says. Don't forget that most of speakers Houses were built in XIX Century when the microphone didn't exist, so listening to others was troublesome.
---------------------------------
_______________________________________
As one who regularly addresses large crowds, I can tell you that while acoustics may not be as important today, eye contact still is. Alternatives such as a podium in the round are disconcerting at best.
Also, remember that many legislatures in the United States are in the same buildings they have been in for years. Tradition plays an important role, and there is a high bar to change it.
Finally, if you are wondering why parties sit together, there is an even simpler reason. Think back to high school. Given a choice between assigned seats (where the teacher decided) and sitting with your friends, which did you choose? In most assemblies, the podium is one of the less interesting things going on. It's the ability to talk with your colleagues (the polite term is caucus), both for strategic reasons and just because you like them better that matters.
To answer the second part of your question about other seating arrangements:
The British House of Commons is set up in a rectangle, with each party on one side of the rectangle and the speaker sitting in between the two aisles. Also unique to the HoC is the size. The chamber can only seat 427 of the 650 members. After WWII, Churchill had the opportunity to rebuild the chamber to accommodate the large body. He declined and insisted that the shape of the old Chamber was responsible for the two-party system which is the essence of British parliamentary democracy: 'we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.' The Confrontational design helps to keep debates lively and robust but also intimate. Having watched some debate, I can say the British House of Commons is much more rowdy than any other government I have seen.
Canada and Britain are opposed, stacked rows, like spectator flanks in a hockey stadium, while France and America are like the ends of a hockey stadium, rounded. There is no "reason" for either shape.
