|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
The scots are one group of people who live concentrated in a few areas but that was not the group i meant.
I think it is mostly the poorer people who live concentrated in large numbers,for example in certain suburbs of london.
Even if it tends towards a 2 party system the system is still unfair. You can see it in the usa and gerrymandering,more then once a president has been elected who did not get the majority of the casted votes.
Its not meant as critizism,it is more an observation.
Wombat makes a good point about continuity imo,and again the usa shows examples of it as well with for example obama care which trump wanted to break down again (though as far as i know he kept a large portion of it intact in the end).
If partys are forced to cooperate then there might be more continuity. Imo cooperation in a multi party system is good because it often leads to a middle of the road aproach and all voices are heard.
|
On December 17 2019 02:07 pmh wrote:
The scots are one group of people who live concentrated in a few areas but that was not the group i meant.
I think it is mostly the poorer people who live concentrated in large numbers,for example in certain suburbs of london.
Even if it tends towards a 2 party system the system is still unfair. You can see it in the usa and gerrymandering,more then once a president has been elected who did not get the majority of the casted votes.
Its not meant as critizism,it is more an observation.
Wombat makes a good point about continuity imo,and again the usa shows examples of it as well with for example obama care which trump wanted to break down again (though as far as i know he kept a large portion of it intact in the end).
If partys are forced to cooperate then there might be more continuity. Imo cooperation in a multi party system is good because it often leads to a middle of the road aproach and all voices are heard.
In France, the cooperation doesn't happen. Either one party has the control and can make decisions, or it will be slowed down by the need to cater to the second party.
|
The UK's coalition government of 2010 functioned well. You may disagree with what they were doing but they cannot be called ineffective. The coalition relied on political bartering of policies and I think that was a better way to govern than the dictatorial approach when one party has a majority. The Lib Dems were able to push some policies that I think might not have become law in a Tory majority - such as gay marriage.
I'd add some criticisms to the FPTP system compared to PR;
It encourages divisive tribalist politics.
If hung parliaments are fairly common and you know you will probably need to work with other parties to form a government then it is riskier to to do things like compare a party leader to Stalin, or imply that party leader wants to execute rich people. In FPTP you can go full attack/obstruct/lie/cheat because none of it will matter if you get a majority.
The squabbling that you get between parties in a PR system become internal party squabbles in FPTP.
Labour has been experiencing a civil war between the Blairite and Corbynite wings for years. In a PR system they would probably be different parties. Likewise, the Tories were a mix of pro-business free market pro-EU types and anti-EU social conservatives (but the former lost the Tory civil war and have been expunged).
FPTP can lead to more extreme governments.
In this recent election Labour had moved quite far to the left compared to the previous couple of decades and the Conservatives had been hijacked by hard-Brexit supporters. The parties members are disproportionately on the political extremes which drags the parties to the extremes because there is not a centrist option for most voters. Moreover, any attempt to found a centre-left party would only take votes away from Labour and make a Tory government more likely, and similarly for a centre-right party.
|
With regards to the tribalism, an additional thing that leads to this (in addition to what Melliflue said) is that in a multi-party system, just making one other party look bad isn't enough. You need to either make all other parties look bad, which is hard, or actually look good yourself. And considering that if you do stuff solely to make the other party look bad, you also look slightly bad yourself, chances are if you are going full on "the other guys suck" nonstop, that isn't enough for a majority.
Now, the right-wing party AfD here in Germany is trying to do exactly that and is constantly throwing mud at all other parties in an attempt to build their own alternative facts based voting base. But it doesn't reach the levels that it does in FPTP two party systems like the US or the UK, where making the other party look bad is just as good as looking good yourself.
|
I think FPTP has its constitutional advantages as it keeps the most direct link between constituents of a local area and the national government. But it cannot be denied that proportional representation has its benefits in terms of encouraging compromise.
The question: why not both? You could imagine a FPTP Lower house and a proportional representation upper house. Of course, right now the upper house in the UK isn't even elected. But Lords reform would probably be an easier change to get behind than radically altering the makeup of the Commons.
|
On December 17 2019 10:54 gobbledydook wrote:
I think FPTP has its constitutional advantages as it keeps the most direct link between constituents of a local area and the national government. But it cannot be denied that proportional representation has its benefits in terms of encouraging compromise.
The question: why not both? You could imagine a FPTP Lower house and a proportional representation upper house. Of course, right now the upper house in the UK isn't even elected. But Lords reform would probably be an easier change to get behind than radically altering the makeup of the Commons.
You get local representation anyway, their job is to be visible, and they often stand up for the interests of their region.
|
I think there's a bit of 'the grass is always greener on the other side' going on here.
In Belgium we're 200+ days without government with no end in sight because we need at least 6 parties to make a coalition in order to get a majority government.
We've gone 500+ days without a government in the past for the same reason, it's terrible for the country.
Think of FPTP what you will, at least you always have a functioning government.
|
On December 17 2019 18:56 Laurens wrote:
I think there's a bit of 'the grass is always greener on the other side' going on here.
In Belgium we're 200+ days without government with no end in sight because we need at least 6 parties to make a coalition in order to get a majority government.
We've gone 500+ days without a government in the past for the same reason, it's terrible for the country.
Think of FPTP what you will, at least you always have a functioning government.
That just sounds like a bad implementation of ranked vote tho. Your parties should be able to form a government without having a majority, if the remaining parties aren't able to. Minority rule is quite common in system like these.
|
Northern Ireland26739 Posts
The Belgium vs Northern Ireland clash of the titans in the ‘European countries without a government’ marathon, just leagues ahead of the rest of the Euros
|
Northern Ireland26739 Posts
On December 17 2019 18:56 Laurens wrote:
I think there's a bit of 'the grass is always greener on the other side' going on here.
In Belgium we're 200+ days without government with no end in sight because we need at least 6 parties to make a coalition in order to get a majority government.
We've gone 500+ days without a government in the past for the same reason, it's terrible for the country.
Think of FPTP what you will, at least you always have a functioning government.
Isn’t that additionally complicated by the Flanders/Wallonia element?
But yeah point taken. All systems have strengths and flaws and some will work perfectly in one locality and terribly in another depending on various factors.
|
Yeah our federal government formations are always a disaster. This is generally because we have a more right leaning sentiment (45% quite right + extreme right) in Flanders while a generally more left leaning sentiment in Wallonia.
It's a mess lol.
|
On December 17 2019 10:54 gobbledydook wrote:
I think FPTP has its constitutional advantages as it keeps the most direct link between constituents of a local area and the national government. But it cannot be denied that proportional representation has its benefits in terms of encouraging compromise.
The question: why not both? You could imagine a FPTP Lower house and a proportional representation upper house. Of course, right now the upper house in the UK isn't even elected. But Lords reform would probably be an easier change to get behind than radically altering the makeup of the Commons.
The constituency system also encourages a government to focus funding in marginal or safe seats, and sacrifice seats they consider unwinnable, because it doesn't matter if they lose the seat by 5,000 votes or 20,000.
(Tbh, I doubt most people could name their MP. People in my constituency struggle when I ask. People vote for the party and ignore the name of the person on the ballot.)
|
On December 18 2019 03:08 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2019 10:54 gobbledydook wrote:
I think FPTP has its constitutional advantages as it keeps the most direct link between constituents of a local area and the national government. But it cannot be denied that proportional representation has its benefits in terms of encouraging compromise.
The question: why not both? You could imagine a FPTP Lower house and a proportional representation upper house. Of course, right now the upper house in the UK isn't even elected. But Lords reform would probably be an easier change to get behind than radically altering the makeup of the Commons. The constituency system also encourages a government to focus funding in marginal or safe seats, and sacrifice seats they consider unwinnable, because it doesn't matter if they lose the seat by 5,000 votes or 20,000. (Tbh, I doubt most people could name their MP. People in my constituency struggle when I ask. People vote for the party and ignore the name of the person on the ballot.)
David Starkey went on about this in a recent speech. I've started the youtube video where it's most relevant. + Show Spoiler [YouTube] +
and he's grounding it in a political perspective and commentary on Disraeli if you watch the whole thing.
I'd weigh the commitment to a party manifesto and national leaders detailing how they will lead in speeches as more important than people in safe seats knowing their representative. Not to say ignorance of your particular MP isn't a problem that should be avoided if possible. It just looks to me like current solutions mentioned in the thread, like proportional representation, involve worse problems than those it's attempting to fix.
|
I could name my MP, but it's hard not to when they are shoving their leaflets into my door. Then again the unusual frequency of elections over the past few years and the MP of my constituency has remained the same would be a factor.
|
On December 18 2019 03:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 03:08 Melliflue wrote:On December 17 2019 10:54 gobbledydook wrote:
I think FPTP has its constitutional advantages as it keeps the most direct link between constituents of a local area and the national government. But it cannot be denied that proportional representation has its benefits in terms of encouraging compromise.
The question: why not both? You could imagine a FPTP Lower house and a proportional representation upper house. Of course, right now the upper house in the UK isn't even elected. But Lords reform would probably be an easier change to get behind than radically altering the makeup of the Commons. The constituency system also encourages a government to focus funding in marginal or safe seats, and sacrifice seats they consider unwinnable, because it doesn't matter if they lose the seat by 5,000 votes or 20,000. (Tbh, I doubt most people could name their MP. People in my constituency struggle when I ask. People vote for the party and ignore the name of the person on the ballot.) David Starkey went on about this in a recent speech. I've started the youtube video where it's most relevant. + Show Spoiler [YouTube] +and he's grounding it in a political perspective and commentary on Disraeli if you watch the whole thing. I'd weigh the commitment to a party manifesto and national leaders detailing how they will lead in speeches as more important than people in safe seats knowing their representative. Not to say ignorance of your particular MP isn't a problem that should be avoided if possible. It just looks to me like current solutions mentioned in the thread, like proportional representation, involve worse problems than those it's attempting to fix.
Why not run a mixed system that means votes aren’t wasted in the way they are FPTP. It seems fairly simple to me to for instance halve the number of constituencies in the UK by merging all constituencies with a neighbouring one and add that same number of MPs as ‘free’ of a specific seat to be allocated to fix the difference between seats won at the FPTP constituencies and the popular vote.
I.e. 40 % of the vote giving 70% of the seats in the constituencies part is then balanced by seat allocation so the party recieves a total of 40% of the seats by getting fewer of the free seats, since they got proportionally too many of the constituency-allocated seats. Similarly, if three parties got 20% of the vote each but only a total of 30% of the constituency-seats they would get proportionally more of the ‘free’ seats.
You keep the local connection but ensure all votes count and that the majority in parliament reflect the popular vote. You also still allow parties focused on local issues to win constituency seats while not being competitive nationally.
It would overcome the two party system issue to a large extend, would allow minor parties that aren’t locally focused to get into parliament, but would often result in a ‘hung’ parliament; necessitating cross-party collaboration rather then majority rule by 43% of the total voter base.
|
On December 23 2019 00:16 Edlina wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 03:36 Danglars wrote:On December 18 2019 03:08 Melliflue wrote:On December 17 2019 10:54 gobbledydook wrote:
I think FPTP has its constitutional advantages as it keeps the most direct link between constituents of a local area and the national government. But it cannot be denied that proportional representation has its benefits in terms of encouraging compromise.
The question: why not both? You could imagine a FPTP Lower house and a proportional representation upper house. Of course, right now the upper house in the UK isn't even elected. But Lords reform would probably be an easier change to get behind than radically altering the makeup of the Commons. The constituency system also encourages a government to focus funding in marginal or safe seats, and sacrifice seats they consider unwinnable, because it doesn't matter if they lose the seat by 5,000 votes or 20,000. (Tbh, I doubt most people could name their MP. People in my constituency struggle when I ask. People vote for the party and ignore the name of the person on the ballot.) David Starkey went on about this in a recent speech. I've started the youtube video where it's most relevant. + Show Spoiler [YouTube] +and he's grounding it in a political perspective and commentary on Disraeli if you watch the whole thing. I'd weigh the commitment to a party manifesto and national leaders detailing how they will lead in speeches as more important than people in safe seats knowing their representative. Not to say ignorance of your particular MP isn't a problem that should be avoided if possible. It just looks to me like current solutions mentioned in the thread, like proportional representation, involve worse problems than those it's attempting to fix. Why not run a mixed system that means votes aren’t wasted in the way they are FPTP. It seems fairly simple to me to for instance halve the number of constituencies in the UK by merging all constituencies with a neighbouring one and add that same number of MPs as ‘free’ of a specific seat to be allocated to fix the difference between seats won at the FPTP constituencies and the popular vote. I.e. 40 % of the vote giving 70% of the seats in the constituencies part is then balanced by seat allocation so the party recieves a total of 40% of the seats by getting fewer of the free seats, since they got proportionally too many of the constituency-allocated seats. Similarly, if three parties got 20% of the vote each but only a total of 30% of the constituency-seats they would get proportionally more of the ‘free’ seats. You keep the local connection but ensure all votes count and that the majority in parliament reflect the popular vote. You also still allow parties focused on local issues to win constituency seats while not being competitive nationally. It would overcome the two party system issue to a large extend, would allow minor parties that aren’t locally focused to get into parliament, but would often result in a ‘hung’ parliament; necessitating cross-party collaboration rather then majority rule by 43% of the total voter base.
For the same reasons as cited by Starkey, which I explicitly referred to in my post. Did you check it out? I was summarizing and commenting on it, not building up an argument from scratch. It’s an argument in favor of two party “whipped” systems, in fact. I can agree that lowering wasted votes has a nice ring to it. I just can’t figure out how it wouldn’t bring far worse outcomes like coalitions as useful as hung parliaments, and widespread voting apathy ... since nothing will change after elections. That one’s been a critique of European proportional representative houses for at least 40 years, so you’ve probably heard all of it before.
|
Another major benefit of scrapping the fptp system is that it is much easier for smaller parties to establish themselves and that election results will reflect changes much more accurately. A system rigged to get 2 major parties is simply a lot less democratic, and the parlament is bound to be a worse representation of the population.
Also, if a party is dysfunctional, a lot of voters will have no alternative and often end up staying home.
Yes, forming a government might be more difficult in some situations, but it can be solved by lining out the alternatives for different coalitions and support parties before the election. Parties who break their promises to oppose or collaborate are usually punished severely at the next election.
For smaller parties, staying outside the government but supporting it from case to case is a very viable alternative. Smaller parties who joins the government are usually losing a lot of voters as they tend to be trampled and end up fronting policies of another party.
|
On December 23 2019 00:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2019 00:16 Edlina wrote:On December 18 2019 03:36 Danglars wrote:On December 18 2019 03:08 Melliflue wrote:On December 17 2019 10:54 gobbledydook wrote:
I think FPTP has its constitutional advantages as it keeps the most direct link between constituents of a local area and the national government. But it cannot be denied that proportional representation has its benefits in terms of encouraging compromise.
The question: why not both? You could imagine a FPTP Lower house and a proportional representation upper house. Of course, right now the upper house in the UK isn't even elected. But Lords reform would probably be an easier change to get behind than radically altering the makeup of the Commons. The constituency system also encourages a government to focus funding in marginal or safe seats, and sacrifice seats they consider unwinnable, because it doesn't matter if they lose the seat by 5,000 votes or 20,000. (Tbh, I doubt most people could name their MP. People in my constituency struggle when I ask. People vote for the party and ignore the name of the person on the ballot.) David Starkey went on about this in a recent speech. I've started the youtube video where it's most relevant. + Show Spoiler [YouTube] +and he's grounding it in a political perspective and commentary on Disraeli if you watch the whole thing. I'd weigh the commitment to a party manifesto and national leaders detailing how they will lead in speeches as more important than people in safe seats knowing their representative. Not to say ignorance of your particular MP isn't a problem that should be avoided if possible. It just looks to me like current solutions mentioned in the thread, like proportional representation, involve worse problems than those it's attempting to fix. Why not run a mixed system that means votes aren’t wasted in the way they are FPTP. It seems fairly simple to me to for instance halve the number of constituencies in the UK by merging all constituencies with a neighbouring one and add that same number of MPs as ‘free’ of a specific seat to be allocated to fix the difference between seats won at the FPTP constituencies and the popular vote. I.e. 40 % of the vote giving 70% of the seats in the constituencies part is then balanced by seat allocation so the party recieves a total of 40% of the seats by getting fewer of the free seats, since they got proportionally too many of the constituency-allocated seats. Similarly, if three parties got 20% of the vote each but only a total of 30% of the constituency-seats they would get proportionally more of the ‘free’ seats. You keep the local connection but ensure all votes count and that the majority in parliament reflect the popular vote. You also still allow parties focused on local issues to win constituency seats while not being competitive nationally. It would overcome the two party system issue to a large extend, would allow minor parties that aren’t locally focused to get into parliament, but would often result in a ‘hung’ parliament; necessitating cross-party collaboration rather then majority rule by 43% of the total voter base. For the same reasons as cited by Starkey, which I explicitly referred to in my post. Did you check it out? I was summarizing and commenting on it, not building up an argument from scratch. It’s an argument in favor of two party “whipped” systems, in fact. I can agree that lowering wasted votes has a nice ring to it. I just can’t figure out how it wouldn’t bring far worse outcomes like coalitions as useful as hung parliaments, and widespread voting apathy ... since nothing will change after elections. That one’s been a critique of European proportional representative houses for at least 40 years, so you’ve probably heard all of it before.
I saw the part from where you started the video, but I don’t think any argument I’ve heard yet justifies a system where voting for a very big part of the electorate doesn’t make any sense since their votes don’t count - and furthermore where your bound to vote for only one of two parties if you want any chance for your vote to count.
If anything that fact must be a much stronger catalyst for widespread voting apathy than a system where the power base lies in the middle of the political spectrum due to multiple parties and coalitions being in power.
Perhaps you could articulate in your words how you feel the UK system is more fair and a better representation of the will of the people than a similar system with the adjustments I proposed.
I don’t agree with the presumption that nothing will change after elections. If anything my proposal would allow parties such as the Brexit party to gain PM seats equivalent to their national votes, which is very different from FPTP. I’d turn the argument around to say change is if anything more limited in FPTP since only one of two parties will ever rule.
|
On December 23 2019 23:57 Edlina wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2019 00:45 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2019 00:16 Edlina wrote:On December 18 2019 03:36 Danglars wrote:On December 18 2019 03:08 Melliflue wrote:On December 17 2019 10:54 gobbledydook wrote:
I think FPTP has its constitutional advantages as it keeps the most direct link between constituents of a local area and the national government. But it cannot be denied that proportional representation has its benefits in terms of encouraging compromise.
The question: why not both? You could imagine a FPTP Lower house and a proportional representation upper house. Of course, right now the upper house in the UK isn't even elected. But Lords reform would probably be an easier change to get behind than radically altering the makeup of the Commons. The constituency system also encourages a government to focus funding in marginal or safe seats, and sacrifice seats they consider unwinnable, because it doesn't matter if they lose the seat by 5,000 votes or 20,000. (Tbh, I doubt most people could name their MP. People in my constituency struggle when I ask. People vote for the party and ignore the name of the person on the ballot.) David Starkey went on about this in a recent speech. I've started the youtube video where it's most relevant. + Show Spoiler [YouTube] +and he's grounding it in a political perspective and commentary on Disraeli if you watch the whole thing. I'd weigh the commitment to a party manifesto and national leaders detailing how they will lead in speeches as more important than people in safe seats knowing their representative. Not to say ignorance of your particular MP isn't a problem that should be avoided if possible. It just looks to me like current solutions mentioned in the thread, like proportional representation, involve worse problems than those it's attempting to fix. Why not run a mixed system that means votes aren’t wasted in the way they are FPTP. It seems fairly simple to me to for instance halve the number of constituencies in the UK by merging all constituencies with a neighbouring one and add that same number of MPs as ‘free’ of a specific seat to be allocated to fix the difference between seats won at the FPTP constituencies and the popular vote. I.e. 40 % of the vote giving 70% of the seats in the constituencies part is then balanced by seat allocation so the party recieves a total of 40% of the seats by getting fewer of the free seats, since they got proportionally too many of the constituency-allocated seats. Similarly, if three parties got 20% of the vote each but only a total of 30% of the constituency-seats they would get proportionally more of the ‘free’ seats. You keep the local connection but ensure all votes count and that the majority in parliament reflect the popular vote. You also still allow parties focused on local issues to win constituency seats while not being competitive nationally. It would overcome the two party system issue to a large extend, would allow minor parties that aren’t locally focused to get into parliament, but would often result in a ‘hung’ parliament; necessitating cross-party collaboration rather then majority rule by 43% of the total voter base. For the same reasons as cited by Starkey, which I explicitly referred to in my post. Did you check it out? I was summarizing and commenting on it, not building up an argument from scratch. It’s an argument in favor of two party “whipped” systems, in fact. I can agree that lowering wasted votes has a nice ring to it. I just can’t figure out how it wouldn’t bring far worse outcomes like coalitions as useful as hung parliaments, and widespread voting apathy ... since nothing will change after elections. That one’s been a critique of European proportional representative houses for at least 40 years, so you’ve probably heard all of it before. I saw the part from where you started the video, but I don’t think any argument I’ve heard yet justifies a system where voting for a very big part of the electorate doesn’t make any sense since their votes don’t count - and furthermore where your bound to vote for only one of two parties if you want any chance for your vote to count. If anything that fact must be a much stronger catalyst for widespread voting apathy than a system where the power base lies in the middle of the political spectrum due to multiple parties and coalitions being in power. Perhaps you could articulate in your words how you feel the UK system is more fair and a better representation of the will of the people than a similar system with the adjustments I proposed. I don’t agree with the presumption that nothing will change after elections. If anything my proposal would allow parties such as the Brexit party to gain PM seats equivalent to their national votes, which is very different from FPTP. I’d turn the argument around to say change is if anything more limited in FPTP since only one of two parties will ever rule.
The big advantage is political stability. The majority rules with their platform, the minority must win the argument in individual constituencies to earn their right to become the new majority and rule. They don't receive power in every spot of the country where the majority of voters thought they were misguided or untrustworthy or worse. The losing party lost the support of the people and should try harder the next time.
Proportional representation makes more national elections give no real results, multiplies the parties, and backroom deals between parties multiply away from the watchful eyes of the electorate. In the end, your vote didn't really matter, because your representative had to surrender the major disputed parts of his platform in order to grab allies that lost their votes. Questions in which his stance didn't totally blow away all opposition are left unresolved, period. The apathy you describe is blown away by the apathy of a voter knowing what he voted for is going to be compromised into oblivion in 5-6-7 parties vying to "wield power."
It leads to examples like Spain, where they haven't had a stable government in years. Four election in four years. Coalitions forming and falling apart. The voters return again and again to the polls, the last vote necessitating a new vote. The lesser example is when the UK semi-two-party system suffered a collapse when their members could not be whipped on the party manifesto, but I admit that example has many complicating factors.
PR essentially trades less "wasted" votes, for more "wasted" elections. The "majority," under prior FTFP local elections, is no longer a majority and cannot do anything. They have to horse-trade away from the voters with other parties to see what kind of false uniting of agenda may be achieved. Your vote counted, but it didn't end up mattering any more in the scope of things.
Now, I turn to your suggestion to merge constituencies with neighbors to half the total number and add a "free" MP to follow the national popular vote. It does not keep the local connection, it defrays the local connection ... as localities have to blend their preferences with their neighbor. That situation is absolutely less local representation. Parties will campaign harder in their safe areas/leaning areas to turn out higher vote totals to pick up more free MPs, and make less of an effort in marginal seats. Better a few more wasted votes, but a more locally representative governing body. It's really giving power and privilege to urban centers, since higher vote counts lead to more wasted votes, and the rurals don't matter because of their comparatively less vote counts for the losing party. I don't even think that's a coincidence in the focus over wasted votes: people feel at some level that rural and exurban areas should be more neglected because they're less populated.
I must be a little brief, since this topic brings in a ton of attendant considerations, such as whipping party members to the manifesto, how big to draw constituencies in general, the function of the courts (post-Blair), individual member accountability, the relationship of the party leader to his party's representatives, constituency representation in the national body, sub-national governing bodies (eg Scottish Parliament).
|
On December 24 2019 02:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2019 23:57 Edlina wrote:On December 23 2019 00:45 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2019 00:16 Edlina wrote:On December 18 2019 03:36 Danglars wrote:On December 18 2019 03:08 Melliflue wrote:On December 17 2019 10:54 gobbledydook wrote:
I think FPTP has its constitutional advantages as it keeps the most direct link between constituents of a local area and the national government. But it cannot be denied that proportional representation has its benefits in terms of encouraging compromise.
The question: why not both? You could imagine a FPTP Lower house and a proportional representation upper house. Of course, right now the upper house in the UK isn't even elected. But Lords reform would probably be an easier change to get behind than radically altering the makeup of the Commons. The constituency system also encourages a government to focus funding in marginal or safe seats, and sacrifice seats they consider unwinnable, because it doesn't matter if they lose the seat by 5,000 votes or 20,000. (Tbh, I doubt most people could name their MP. People in my constituency struggle when I ask. People vote for the party and ignore the name of the person on the ballot.) David Starkey went on about this in a recent speech. I've started the youtube video where it's most relevant. + Show Spoiler [YouTube] +and he's grounding it in a political perspective and commentary on Disraeli if you watch the whole thing. I'd weigh the commitment to a party manifesto and national leaders detailing how they will lead in speeches as more important than people in safe seats knowing their representative. Not to say ignorance of your particular MP isn't a problem that should be avoided if possible. It just looks to me like current solutions mentioned in the thread, like proportional representation, involve worse problems than those it's attempting to fix. Why not run a mixed system that means votes aren’t wasted in the way they are FPTP. It seems fairly simple to me to for instance halve the number of constituencies in the UK by merging all constituencies with a neighbouring one and add that same number of MPs as ‘free’ of a specific seat to be allocated to fix the difference between seats won at the FPTP constituencies and the popular vote. I.e. 40 % of the vote giving 70% of the seats in the constituencies part is then balanced by seat allocation so the party recieves a total of 40% of the seats by getting fewer of the free seats, since they got proportionally too many of the constituency-allocated seats. Similarly, if three parties got 20% of the vote each but only a total of 30% of the constituency-seats they would get proportionally more of the ‘free’ seats. You keep the local connection but ensure all votes count and that the majority in parliament reflect the popular vote. You also still allow parties focused on local issues to win constituency seats while not being competitive nationally. It would overcome the two party system issue to a large extend, would allow minor parties that aren’t locally focused to get into parliament, but would often result in a ‘hung’ parliament; necessitating cross-party collaboration rather then majority rule by 43% of the total voter base. For the same reasons as cited by Starkey, which I explicitly referred to in my post. Did you check it out? I was summarizing and commenting on it, not building up an argument from scratch. It’s an argument in favor of two party “whipped” systems, in fact. I can agree that lowering wasted votes has a nice ring to it. I just can’t figure out how it wouldn’t bring far worse outcomes like coalitions as useful as hung parliaments, and widespread voting apathy ... since nothing will change after elections. That one’s been a critique of European proportional representative houses for at least 40 years, so you’ve probably heard all of it before. I saw the part from where you started the video, but I don’t think any argument I’ve heard yet justifies a system where voting for a very big part of the electorate doesn’t make any sense since their votes don’t count - and furthermore where your bound to vote for only one of two parties if you want any chance for your vote to count. If anything that fact must be a much stronger catalyst for widespread voting apathy than a system where the power base lies in the middle of the political spectrum due to multiple parties and coalitions being in power. Perhaps you could articulate in your words how you feel the UK system is more fair and a better representation of the will of the people than a similar system with the adjustments I proposed. I don’t agree with the presumption that nothing will change after elections. If anything my proposal would allow parties such as the Brexit party to gain PM seats equivalent to their national votes, which is very different from FPTP. I’d turn the argument around to say change is if anything more limited in FPTP since only one of two parties will ever rule. The big advantage is political stability. The majority rules with their platform, the minority must win the argument in individual constituencies to earn their right to become the new majority and rule. They don't receive power in every spot of the country where the majority of voters thought they were misguided or untrustworthy or worse. The losing party lost the support of the people and should try harder the next time.
I don't see any added political stability in a two-party FPTP system. If anything the two parties are likely to oppose each other strongly, at least publicly, to separate themselves from each other and argue for voters to look their way. Do you think, if Labour had won the same majority which the Tories won in the latest election that there would be political stability? With their reversion of privatisation agenda, government taking over a number of areas of business and their completely different stance on e.g. Brexit. I don't, I think in fact the opposite and that a FPTP system gives less stability than a mixed PR-system which fosters coalition governments around the political centre, never allowing one party or person too much power, unless the majority of the voters desire it.
Proportional representation makes more national elections give no real results, multiplies the parties, and backroom deals between parties multiply away from the watchful eyes of the electorate. In the end, your vote didn't really matter, because your representative had to surrender the major disputed parts of his platform in order to grab allies that lost their votes. Questions in which his stance didn't totally blow away all opposition are left unresolved, period. The apathy you describe is blown away by the apathy of a voter knowing what he voted for is going to be compromised into oblivion in 5-6-7 parties vying to "wield power."
In a PR system each party has to make their case to the voters for why they should get their vote at the next election. That means while deals are made, wins are very much presented to the voters and defeats are highlighted by opposing parties. Your vote absolutely mattered, but not unduly so, since you only got power in accordance with how many people agreed with you nationally. That meant coalition building yes, especially on tough questions, but this gives the political stability that you're craving. I disagree with your notion of when voter apathy sets in. In the 2015 election UKIP won 12.6% percent of the votes in 2015 but got one seat, that is ridiculous and creates voter apathy. In 2019 more than 45% of the votes "did not matter" since they were not cast for the winner of the constituency. In 'safe' seats that creates a lot of voter apathy. Same with the alliances between parties on where to run and where not to run. Or the fact that the Tories won 43.6% of the votes but more than 56% of the MPs, meaning 43.6% get to decide important questions such as Brexit over the opinion of the majority (e.g. the more than 50% of voters that voted for parties in favour of revoke or a second referendum).
It leads to examples like Spain, where they haven't had a stable government in years. Four election in four years. Coalitions forming and falling apart. The voters return again and again to the polls, the last vote necessitating a new vote. The lesser example is when the UK semi-two-party system suffered a collapse when their members could not be whipped on the party manifesto, but I admit that example has many complicating factors.
I agree that this is a downside to PR that you see in more countries these days. I believe in time it will be resolved, but it is not optimal to have these constant coalition-building issues.
PR essentially trades less "wasted" votes, for more "wasted" elections. The "majority," under prior FTFP local elections, is no longer a majority and cannot do anything. They have to horse-trade away from the voters with other parties to see what kind of false uniting of agenda may be achieved. Your vote counted, but it didn't end up mattering any more in the scope of things.
No that's just it. Like in any democracy, whether FPTP or PR, there is rarely a clear majority for anything other than 'business as usual'. In FPTP there isn't even a majority for Tories, they are obtained a ruling majority based on a minority vote share of 43%. Horse trading away and only getting some of what you'd like - to me - is an essential part of democracy. In the UK it just happens to a large degree behind closed doors within the parties, rather than between two or more parties of different convictions.
Now, I turn to your suggestion to merge constituencies with neighbors to half the total number and add a "free" MP to follow the national popular vote. It does not keep the local connection, it defrays the local connection ... as localities have to blend their preferences with their neighbor. That situation is absolutely less local representation. Parties will campaign harder in their safe areas/leaning areas to turn out higher vote totals to pick up more free MPs, and make less of an effort in marginal seats. Better a few more wasted votes, but a more locally representative governing body. It's really giving power and privilege to urban centers, since higher vote counts lead to more wasted votes, and the rurals don't matter because of their comparatively less vote counts for the losing party. I don't even think that's a coincidence in the focus over wasted votes: people feel at some level that rural and exurban areas should be more neglected because they're less populated.
I must be a little brief, since this topic brings in a ton of attendant considerations, such as whipping party members to the manifesto, how big to draw constituencies in general, the function of the courts (post-Blair), individual member accountability, the relationship of the party leader to his party's representatives, constituency representation in the national body, sub-national governing bodies (eg Scottish Parliament).
If your worry is the local connection I have an easy solution for that. Double the number of MPs instead of halving the number of constituencies. Same result, same local connection. This is really a philosophical question, what is the right number of voters per MP. In the UK it's much lower than in e.g. the US House let alone the elections for the Indian parliament. Let me know the maximum number of voters per representative that you think is reasonable while keeping the local connection and we can use that as the basis. This changes nothing.
I don't follow your rural/urban argument. Are you suggestion that the vote of a person in a rural area should count for more than the vote of a person in an urban setting? In an ordinary modern democracy one person should have one vote which should count the same as any other eligible voter's vote. Do you disagree with this basic cornerstone of democracy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
