Minority Rule

[Desperado †]

2005 UK Elections
Percentage of Votes
Labour: 35.3%
Conservatives: 32.3%
Lib Dems: 22.1%

Percentage of Commons' Seats
Labour: 55.1%
Conservatives: 30.7%
Lib Dems: 9.6%

First past the post is undemocratic. It results in the equivalent of block voting (which the Tories so vehemently opposed in the unions but will ignore in the Commons). It results in overly strong governments without the need to compromise (a central part of democracy) and hierarchal parties out of touch with the electorate. It results 'safe seats' and disregards the vote of millions, and meaning that the election is fought in just a few key marginals, killing democratic enthusiasm and participation in many places of the country. It concretes the same old duopoly in a system which both parties accept as an inevitable pendulum, defeating any need to call for actual change. It's even resulted in a party with the most votes loosing an election.

[Gromovnik]

QFT. +rep

[removeduser_487563287433]

I like First Past the Post. Allows for effective Government and keeps out the nutters.

[Desperado †]

Effective as in a group voted for by a minority can pass laws without opposition?

[Jom]

Effective as in a group voted for by a minority can pass laws without opposition?

Effective as in it avoids - for the most past - squabbling coalitions that have to haggle over what sort of concessions each party wants included in whatever act of parliament is trying to be passed.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Effective as in a group voted for by a minority can pass laws without opposition?

I don't see how the alternatives change that. So you're second choice won power... uh, great. That's hardly majority rule, in my opinion.

[Kjertesvein]

2005 UK Elections
Percentage of Votes
Labour: 35.3%
Conservatives: 32.3%
Lib Dems: 22.1%

Percentage of Commons' Seats
Labour: 55.1%
Conservatives: 30.7%
Lib Dems: 9.6%

First past the post is undemocratic. It results in the equivalent of block voting (which the Tories so vehemently opposed in the unions but will ignore in the Commons). It results in overly strong governments without the need to compromise (a central part of democracy) and hierarchal parties out of touch with the electorate. It results 'safe seats' and disregards the vote of millions, and meaning that the election is fought in just a few key marginals, killing democratic enthusiasm and participation in many places of the country. It concretes the same old duopoly in a system which both parties accept as an inevitable pendulum, defeating any need to call for actual change. It's even resulted in a party with the most votes loosing an election.

Yeah.

And I would note down that what you have resembles a 2 party system, not a "continental" block party system. Only 2 partys are effective in normal periodes, and they swing worse then a drunken whore. You guys have a real "effective" government. It only takes a minute looking at the heavy metal Industry (sp?). Private, national, private, national, private, , etc. etc.
And for the sake argument, take a look at the opposit. A coalition government of Scan pen. (Norway and Sweden), atleast post ww2 to pre- 2001. For indebt view from the inside - Track down Proffesor Frank Albrok, professor at Bergen Univercity and Professor Emeritus Ottar Brox. They are knee deep in information.

BTW: What is the voting turn out over there?


I'm far from being an expert and yes a general, but a senario about the word 'Minority rule' which I don't get:

• Partisipating in US is generally about 54 %. By doing a rawsplit, 20% of the 300 000 000 population vote for 1 party.
• Partisipating Scan. Pen. is very generally about 85 %. By doing a raw split (excluding the 6,1% "insignificant" minority partys), 27% of the 4 700 000 population vote for 1 coalition, jet it's called a 'Minority Rule'?

[Desperado †]

Also the fact that its PR so people know every vote will count towards a particular parties representation. Bring PR to the UK and you will see the BNP sitting in parliament.

1) The BNP are due to win a seat this election anyway.
2) If some people want the BNP, these people have the right to be represented in government. That's democracy.

I would'nt use Italy or Northern Ireland as good examples of governance. (Italy has had 62 governments since 1945)

OK, Italy was a bad example. The coalition building in Northern Ireland however has created a compromise which has been positive in bringing the violence to an end.

I don't see how the alternatives change that. So you're second choice won power... uh, great. That's hardly majority rule, in my opinion.

You have confused proportional representation with preferential voting. STV is a combination of both, but it's the PR bit that stops the minority rule.

It would be majority rule, because a party with 35% of the vote wont have over 50% of the commons' seats. It would have to work with other parties until it has over 50% of the seats.

I.E You would need representatives of half of Britain's votes to be able to pass a law. If that's not majority rule, please, enlighten me. This is the case with just proportional representation, no preferential voting required at all. That's just a sweetener in STV which gives the voter even more power.

BTW: What is the voting turn out over there?

61.3% turn out in last election. So, overall Britain is run by an unopposed party with only 35.5% of those who voted, and chosen by only 21.7% of the entire voting population.

PR would fix the first, and there is much evidence that it also greatly increases political participation, especially with the STV model.

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

It's not great, but on the other side of the coin we have Weimar-esque systems of political atrophy in which nothing gets done. Also, it's important that MPs have a constituency to look after, and not just some raw numbers.

There are serious flaws in FPtP, but it's not as bad as PR. If you have another system, feel free to quote it.

[Desperado †]

Effective as in it avoids - for the most past - squabbling coalitions that have to haggle over what sort of concessions each party wants included in whatever act of parliament is trying to be passed.

Ah, yes, because there's absolutely no squabbles and rival groups within the parties that are in power. Nope, none at all. The Tories all followed Major's lead on Europe, all of Labour loyally followed Blair before the peacefull succession of Brown who they all defend honourably.

Democratic government is not meant to be effective in that it passes legislation without debate. It's meant to be effective in that it represents the people and passes what the majority of the people agree on, and those issues on which different groups of the people find common ground.

It's not great, but on the other side of the coin we have Weimar-esque systems of political atrophy in which nothing gets done. Also, it's important that MPs have a constituency to look after, and not just some raw numbers.

There are serious flaws in FPtP, but it's not as bad as PR. If you have another system, feel free to quote it.

Umm, if you're talking about the initial years of the Weimar republic, please, maybe you should note that they were brand new democracy with no traditions, in the midst of a horrible recession and deeply polarised politics. If not, I think you'll find that today's Germany gets quite a bit passed and passed by governments that reflect the peoples wishes.

Under STV there are still constituencies. The only difference is that when in the midst of an election it's a four times larger battle field. Afterwards the winning MPs can be allocated to the constituencies they received the most votes within this 4x constituency, and these will be exactly the same size as before.

In fact, MPs will be more connected with the constituents, as the people would have been able to choose between several MPs of the same party and would have been able to list them in order of choice. If I was a Labour supporter, rather than just having Peter Hain who was given this seat by Labour HQ, I could choose between four or more Labour MPs. It defeats safe seats and gives the people, not the Party officials, the choices.

And the importance of a local MP is diminishing besides with the regional assemblies and Scottish parliament. MPs vote on nation wide legislation, thus they should represent the nation.

[Yorkshireman]

Ah, yes, because there's absolutely no squabbles and rival groups within the parties that are in power. Nope, none at all.

Democratic government is not meant to be effective in that it passes legislation without debate. It's meant to be effective in that it represents the people and passes what the majority of the people agree on, and that different groups of the people find common ground.

Well based on last years Euro election results we'd maybe have a Tory/UKIP - Lab/Libdem coalition government with each group having to court the Greens or the BNP/English Democrats to pass any bills.

[Jom]

Ah, yes, because there's absolutely no squabbles and rival groups within the parties that are in power. Nope, none at all. The Tories all followed Major's lead on Europe, all of Labour loyally followed Blair before the peacefull succession of Brown who they all defend honourably.

Democratic government is not meant to be effective in that it passes legislation without debate. It's meant to be effective in that it represents the people and passes what the majority of the people agree on, and those issues on which different groups of the people find common ground.

Backbench squabbling/rebellion is resolved much easier than your coalition partner(s) blocking your every move.

Politics and pragmatism have always gone hand in hand.

[Jingles]

I you hate squabbling then why not just have a dictatorship ffs...

There was a reason democracy was invented, you know.

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

There was a reason democracy was invented, you know.

To give governments legitimacy in the eyes of "Joe Plumber" (I resurrect him) in the hope of curbing popular violence. Democracy hasn't been about "power to the plebs" since Ancient Athens, a society completely governed by philosophy and philosophers. Surely you of all people know that, Jingle? Democracy is yet another tool to expediency, and keeping "the great unwashed" quiet, and pitchfork-less. The legacy of the Roman Republic and the "mobile vulgus".

[Desperado †]

Well based on last years Euro election results we'd maybe have a Tory/UKIP - Lab/Libdem coalition government with each group having to court the Greens or the BNP/English Democrats to pass any bills.

The European Election results are greatly effected by the depressingly low turnout coupled with a lack of knowledge of, or care about, Europe.

Backbench squabbling/rebellion is resolved much easier than your coalition partner(s) blocking your every move.

Because that happens in Germany, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Italy...

Yes, it would be hard at first, Westminster has little tradition of coalitions. But the people wont be attracted by an uncooperative party, just like they wont be attracted by a squabbling one. PR forces parties to cooperate and compromise, to find common goals and work towards them. Call me weird, but I'm pretty sure that's what democracy is about.

To give governments legitimacy in the eyes of "Joe Plumber" (I resurrect him) in the hope of curbing popular violence. Democracy hasn't been about "power to the plebs" since Ancient Athens, a society completely governed by philosophy and philosophers. Surely you of all people know that, Jingle? Democracy is yet another tool to expediency, and keeping "the great unwashed" quiet, and pitchfork-less. The legacy of the Roman Republic and the "mobile vulgus".

That's what many of our democracies are maybe, but that's reason against trying to make them a bit more like what the fair ideal of democracy is to most people because...?

[Yorkshireman]

The European Election results are greatly effected by the depressingly low turnout coupled with a lack of knowledge of, or care about, Europe.

Also the fact that its PR so people know every vote will count towards a particular parties representation. Bring PR to the UK and you will see the BNP sitting in parliament.

Because that happens in Germany, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Italy...

I would'nt use Italy or Northern Ireland as good examples of governance. (Italy has had 62 governments since 1945)

[Jom]

I you hate squabbling then why not just have a dictatorship ffs...

There was a reason democracy was invented, you know.

I don't hate squabbling; it's a healthy part of government until it gets to the point where it actively impedes for long periods of time, to the detriment of those the government are meant to be serving.

[Jingles]

To give governments legitimacy in the eyes of "Joe Plumber" (I resurrect him) in the hope of curbing popular violence. Democracy hasn't been about "power to the plebs" since Ancient Athens, a society completely governed by philosophy and philosophers. Surely you of all people know that, Jingle? Democracy is yet another tool to expediency, and keeping "the great unwashed" quiet, and pitchfork-less. The legacy of the Roman Republic and the "mobile vulgus".

true, true. Though at the moment I've got my pretend centrist hat on, since it's more interesting than trolling about how democracy is a sham all the time :/

Jom, I think the argument as it currently stands is that the voters are at MORE detriment with the status quo than with the potential alternative. I think the rise in voter apathy, certainly in the UK is testament to this.

[administrator of yackady]

theres no perfect solution instead of this
its flawed (a party could recieve the most votes but have almost no MPs)

PR ain't great either
here you have a local mp who you know a bit about and is reponsible for campaigning himself

perhaps a solution would be to decide MPs on past the post with the ruling party decided on % of votes?

[Desperado †]

PR ain't great either
here you have a local mp who you know a bit about and is reponsible for campaigning himself

In marginals where it all happens party HQ and all their sisters are flown in besides. In STV you'd have simply a four times larger constituency when voting time comes, and four MPs campaigning in it. Afterwards they can be allocatedto whichever quarter they best represent. So you'd get an MP that you actually chose, not who party HQ has dumped there.

perhaps a solution would be to decide MPs on past the post with the ruling party decided on % of votes?

Except that would have resulted in exactly the same election result for every single general election save 1951. It would prevent the greatest injustices of PR such as this, but we'd still have parties with majorities despite representing only a minority of those who voted, the key flaw in our democracy.