|
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 |
On December 24 2019 11:30 Edlina wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2019 02:48 Danglars wrote: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. Minority parties governing in coalition are inherently less stable than a two-party system with whipped MPs that all signed onto a manifesto. You're really overthinking the meaning of stability. Coalitions of many parties have different goals. It doesn't take more than a minor party withdrawing its support from the major partner to collapse that coalition.
Show nested quote +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). Backroom deals and melding the agendas, surrendering the less shared bits, absolutely puts power further away from the voter. In modern parlance, it's the elites that decide what to drop and what to move forward on. In FPTP, each party also has to make their case to the voters, so I'm unsure about what point you're making there.
Show nested quote +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. I see that as a major major issue, so I'd be interested to see what you think about resolutions. Israel has a proportional system, and they're back to the polls for the third time in less than a year! Less wasted votes but ... well, more wasted votes since you keep casting them again and again and again. I'm not saying my preferred choice doesn't come without it's flaws, but the big PR disasters are just so comically obscene. I don't think they can be wiped away with promises of future resolution; I think the idea should be shelved until solutions are found for contentious issues/leaders/scandals dividing parties doesn't lead to that hilarity.
Show nested quote +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.[/quote] Minority vote share of 43% comes with some asterisks. How much of that is London, Birmingham, and Manchester? You can run up big totals in the cities to make huge changes to overall share of the popular vote. And then you're left wondering, is the problem with the UK that massive cities don't do a good enough job deciding what's best for the rest of the country? That's why I'm deeply skeptical of people making big pushes for increased popular vote reflection. Make you own nation out of your dense urban centers, perhaps. Make some compelling case on why rural really has been wielding too much power. Those really do need to be made.
Also, business as usual involves huge swings of majorities like we just saw in a *mostly* two party system. So I'm making my point for the times when voters desire change, and FPTP will give the tories a chance to get brexit done, and PR will say hold on a minute, Corbyn wants to drag this shit out to another referendum and negotiation.
Show nested quote +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? So we have to talk shares that are devoted to constituencies, and shares to "free" popular vote MPs. Doubling one number and assigning them elsewhere lowers the relative share of the vote that is fixed to an area of a country. The overall percentage of MPs in parliament that must go back and campaign in their areas is lowered. That's something I think is undesirable, to the point where I rate the "wasted vote problem" to be lower in importance to the other factors I mentioned. It's actually a question of proportions, so I think you can grasp what I'm saying here.
You're twisting the meaning of one person one vote. One person does get one vote. But the tradeoff of representative democracies is that the cities don't get to tell the rest of the country how things are going to be. The rest of the country also can't fully dictate to the cities how their money and influence should be redistributed away. That's a tradeoff, just like representatives are a tradeoff to direct democracy. So I think you're being incredibly naive with this "basic cornerstone of democracy," for the same argument can be made that Athenian direct democracy is the only true democracy. Representatives can only imperfectly represent those casting the vote, so one person one vote ought to be every matter of business brought directly to the voter for a national plebiscite on every decision.
If it was as easy as "cornerstone of democracy" arguments, then the 2011 referenum on AV (ranked choice) instead of FPTP would've come back huge for the closer democratic system, compared to the actual abysmal 68% against.
This conversation is important, but we're starting to repeat the same basic points, so maybe a new thread or blog is the place to take it. The UK is just a backdrop for the global question of how to decide elections.
|
On December 24 2019 16:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2019 11:30 Edlina wrote:On December 24 2019 02:48 Danglars wrote: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. Minority parties governing in coalition are inherently less stable than a two-party system with whipped MPs that all signed onto a manifesto. You're really overthinking the meaning of stability. Coalitions of many parties have different goals. It doesn't take more than a minor party withdrawing its support from the major partner to collapse that coalition. Show nested quote +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). Backroom deals and melding the agendas, surrendering the less shared bits, absolutely puts power further away from the voter. In modern parlance, it's the elites that decide what to drop and what to move forward on. In FPTP, each party also has to make their case to the voters, so I'm unsure about what point you're making there. Show nested quote +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. I see that as a major major issue, so I'd be interested to see what you think about resolutions. Israel has a proportional system, and they're back to the polls for the third time in less than a year! Less wasted votes but ... well, more wasted votes since you keep casting them again and again and again. I'm not saying my preferred choice doesn't come without it's flaws, but the big PR disasters are just so comically obscene. I don't think they can be wiped away with promises of future resolution; I think the idea should be shelved until solutions are found for contentious issues/leaders/scandals dividing parties doesn't lead to that hilarity. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Minority vote share of 43% comes with some asterisks. How much of that is London, Birmingham, and Manchester? You can run up big totals in the cities to make huge changes to overall share of the popular vote. And then you're left wondering, is the problem with the UK that massive cities don't do a good enough job deciding what's best for the rest of the country? That's why I'm deeply skeptical of people making big pushes for increased popular vote reflection. Make you own nation out of your dense urban centers, perhaps. Make some compelling case on why rural really has been wielding too much power. Those really do need to be made. Also, business as usual involves huge swings of majorities like we just saw in a *mostly* two party system. So I'm making my point for the times when voters desire change, and FPTP will give the tories a chance to get brexit done, and PR will say hold on a minute, Corbyn wants to drag this shit out to another referendum and negotiation.
The quotes seem to screw up, but let me just point out in relation to the above:
1. We disagree on the notion of stability in political governance. To me political stability is to a large extend an effect of a continuous executive that acts not radically different from the past executive. I.e. a government centered around the middle of the political spectrum. In a two party system there's no middle, there's only left or right. Furthermore, you see distinct differences between the politics of Labour and Tories, but obviously also similarities. I don't think this gives more political stability than a shifting coalition in a PR system which necessarily incorporates both flank and center parties, similar to how each party in a two-party system contains centre as well as more left/right wings. You seem to think political stability means rare/only scheduled elections. I disagree. Number of elections are to me not a driver for more or less stability.
2. Backroom deals happen just as much in an FPTP system, perhaps even more so since they take place between different factions within the two parties rather than openly between multiple parties that each have their own public agendas. What I mean about making their case to the voters is exactly this; i.e. that in a multiparty system each party will make their exact case but neither will get a majority to implement it all, while in a two-party system the party factions will horse-trade their way to an agenda and pretend to present it as something they all agree with, even if the factions stay and in a multiparty system would have broken off into two or more distinct parties with different messages.
3. I believe the situation in Israel (and other countries in a similar situation) will sooner or later start becoming tenous and actually impact the people in the country. This will result in change behaviour by either voters and or parties or individual politicians leading to more willingness to compromise. You seem to think it is a big issue to go back to the voters when issues cannot be resolved by the politicians. I fundamentally disagree and think the situation while silly does not hurt the countries seriously, or if it started to that the situation would then automatically change through voter behaviour or willingness to compromise.
4. What asterisks? Are you saying the votes count less because they originate from large cities? Are those not citizens with a vote in the elections? I'm saying one voter should hold equal power to any other voter. You continue to seem to disagree, which I suppose means you are not actually in favour of democracy and majority rule? There's no need to make any case about rural or urban "rule", the point of democracy is that the majority of people elect the representatives to rule on their behalf. The majority of voters, not the majority of some distinct class of voters. That is really an antitheses to modern democracy. You seem to be arguing in favour of something else. As for 'getting Brexit done', I still believe the majority should decide and not a minority of 43%, you again seem to disagree.
Show nested quote +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?
So we have to talk shares that are devoted to constituencies, and shares to "free" popular vote MPs. Doubling one number and assigning them elsewhere lowers the relative share of the vote that is fixed to an area of a country. The overall percentage of MPs in parliament that must go back and campaign in their areas is lowered. That's something I think is undesirable, to the point where I rate the "wasted vote problem" to be lower in importance to the other factors I mentioned. It's actually a question of proportions, so I think you can grasp what I'm saying here.
You're twisting the meaning of one person one vote. One person does get one vote. But the tradeoff of representative democracies is that the cities don't get to tell the rest of the country how things are going to be. The rest of the country also can't fully dictate to the cities how their money and influence should be redistributed away. That's a tradeoff, just like representatives are a tradeoff to direct democracy. So I think you're being incredibly naive with this "basic cornerstone of democracy," for the same argument can be made that Athenian direct democracy is the only true democracy. Representatives can only imperfectly represent those casting the vote, so one person one vote ought to be every matter of business brought directly to the voter for a national plebiscite on every decision.
If it was as easy as "cornerstone of democracy" arguments, then the 2011 referenum on AV (ranked choice) instead of FPTP would've come back huge for the closer democratic system, compared to the actual abysmal 68% against.
This conversation is important, but we're starting to repeat the same basic points, so maybe a new thread or blog is the place to take it. The UK is just a backdrop for the global question of how to decide elections.
If anything, adding non-geographically bound (or 'free') MPs means you'd have campaigning everywhere and not just in seats that can be flipped to either side. It means you don't see Boris and Corbyn and the campaigns of the Parties only focusing on about one quarter of the seats, but the whole country instead. I don't see how that is undesirable?
You seem to have an issue with recent movement of populations from rural areas to urban areas/cities and the fact that with more people living in urban areas that means those areas wield more power in a democracy (if you assume that those areas can be considered congruent which I certainly think - and if you look at London I believe it is obvious that I'm right - that they aren't). That goes back to you basically don't liking democracy and all voters being equal, for some reason. The tradeoff of representative democracy that you mention (about cities not getting to tell the rest of the country how things are going to be) isn't something that actually exists as part of a representative democracy. It is just something you've made up.
Representative democracy may work differently from direct democracy, but that does not mean that all people shouldn’t get the same proportionate say in who should be their representatives. The 2011 referendum is an entirely different discussion and if you really want to dive into it we can, but you definitely cannot use this as an legitimate argument the way you are trying to.
|
Issue with FPTP is as in any other democracy - luck of accountability - but on larger scale. with only 2 parties standing a chance you pretty much not bounded by anything because one way or another you are bound to end up with close to 50% seats. Frankly I dont think that in any other than FPTP system any party would be able to put BlowJob creature as their leader and win election.
|
Oh look it's danglars and his whole urban voters should have less rights than rural voters schtick. Nevermind that this is the UK thread, not USA, where this sort of "culture war" isn't even a thing.
|
On December 31 2019 14:19 Razyda wrote: Issue with FPTP is as in any other democracy - luck of accountability - but on larger scale. with only 2 parties standing a chance you pretty much not bounded by anything because one way or another you are bound to end up with close to 50% seats. Frankly I dont think that in any other than FPTP system any party would be able to put BlowJob creature as their leader and win election. The landslide victory for your BJ and his capacity to *ahem* get brexit done is quite a recommendation for FPTP. Three cheers. The voters spread across the country were able to express their dissatisfaction with Corbyn/Labor Agenda, and inaction on Brexit, and make their voice resound. This will directly translate into the political might to make it happen, whereas otherwise more dithering would prevail, as did prior to withdrawing the whip and elections.
Frankly, comments like this lead me to believe the gripes are mostly inspired by sadness and frustration with the results of election, and less about the structure of the electoral system itself. The fetishization of nearer-direct-democracy systems is also similar. Does 80% of your country live in cities? Why, the more distant citizens should only get 20%. Has it improved to 90%? Those members should only get 10% say, poor suckers. Fuck those people, more want to live around here. We simply aren't satisfied with majority representation we want more than that. I would prefer a more straightforward approach from those very vociferously on the extreme opposite side. Actually argue to carve up your country into separate ones if there's heavy dissatisfaction in the cities about allowing distant geographic areas more than the naive population percent representation. Be the noble ideologue and support the Confederation of Big Cities telling the rest of the country what's best for them.
On December 31 2019 22:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Oh look it's danglars and his whole urban voters should have less rights than rural voters schtick. Nevermind that this is the UK thread, not USA, where this sort of "culture war" isn't even a thing. I see you wish this was a discussion about "less rights" and "culture war," but maybe you should wait until the discussion actually turns to those topics and read the posts in the meantime.
|
Northern Ireland20683 Posts
On January 01 2020 06:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2019 14:19 Razyda wrote: Issue with FPTP is as in any other democracy - luck of accountability - but on larger scale. with only 2 parties standing a chance you pretty much not bounded by anything because one way or another you are bound to end up with close to 50% seats. Frankly I dont think that in any other than FPTP system any party would be able to put BlowJob creature as their leader and win election. The landslide victory for your BJ and his capacity to *ahem* get brexit done is quite a recommendation for FPTP. Three cheers. The voters spread across the country were able to express their dissatisfaction with Corbyn/Labor Agenda, and inaction on Brexit, and make their voice resound. This will directly translate into the political might to make it happen, whereas otherwise more dithering would prevail, as did prior to withdrawing the whip and elections. Frankly, comments like this lead me to believe the gripes are mostly inspired by sadness and frustration with the results of election, and less about the structure of the electoral system itself. The fetishization of nearer-direct-democracy systems is also similar. Does 80% of your country live in cities? Why, the more distant citizens should only get 20%. Has it improved to 90%? Those members should only get 10% say, poor suckers. Fuck those people, more want to live around here. We simply aren't satisfied with majority representation we want more than that. I would prefer a more straightforward approach from those very vociferously on the extreme opposite side. Actually argue to carve up your country into separate ones if there's heavy dissatisfaction in the cities about allowing distant geographic areas more than the naive population percent representation. Be the noble ideologue and support the Confederation of Big Cities telling the rest of the country what's best for them. Show nested quote +On December 31 2019 22:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Oh look it's danglars and his whole urban voters should have less rights than rural voters schtick. Nevermind that this is the UK thread, not USA, where this sort of "culture war" isn't even a thing. I see you wish this was a discussion about "less rights" and "culture war," but maybe you should wait until the discussion actually turns to those topics and read the posts in the meantime. We’re reasonably aligned on this particular issue, although I would consider it less cultural in my case, more purely economic in basis I guess.
|
On January 01 2020 06:49 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2020 06:27 Danglars wrote:On December 31 2019 14:19 Razyda wrote: Issue with FPTP is as in any other democracy - luck of accountability - but on larger scale. with only 2 parties standing a chance you pretty much not bounded by anything because one way or another you are bound to end up with close to 50% seats. Frankly I dont think that in any other than FPTP system any party would be able to put BlowJob creature as their leader and win election. The landslide victory for your BJ and his capacity to *ahem* get brexit done is quite a recommendation for FPTP. Three cheers. The voters spread across the country were able to express their dissatisfaction with Corbyn/Labor Agenda, and inaction on Brexit, and make their voice resound. This will directly translate into the political might to make it happen, whereas otherwise more dithering would prevail, as did prior to withdrawing the whip and elections. Frankly, comments like this lead me to believe the gripes are mostly inspired by sadness and frustration with the results of election, and less about the structure of the electoral system itself. The fetishization of nearer-direct-democracy systems is also similar. Does 80% of your country live in cities? Why, the more distant citizens should only get 20%. Has it improved to 90%? Those members should only get 10% say, poor suckers. Fuck those people, more want to live around here. We simply aren't satisfied with majority representation we want more than that. I would prefer a more straightforward approach from those very vociferously on the extreme opposite side. Actually argue to carve up your country into separate ones if there's heavy dissatisfaction in the cities about allowing distant geographic areas more than the naive population percent representation. Be the noble ideologue and support the Confederation of Big Cities telling the rest of the country what's best for them. On December 31 2019 22:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Oh look it's danglars and his whole urban voters should have less rights than rural voters schtick. Nevermind that this is the UK thread, not USA, where this sort of "culture war" isn't even a thing. I see you wish this was a discussion about "less rights" and "culture war," but maybe you should wait until the discussion actually turns to those topics and read the posts in the meantime. We’re reasonably aligned on this particular issue, although I would consider it less cultural in my case, more purely economic in basis I guess. I haven’t been describing power sharing in a parliamentary system in cultural terms. It’s much too big of a question for that. Brexit split parties and the most recent election really shook up long-standing rural allegiances ... some more than 80 years. Party platforms change and the same with cultural allegiances. My disagreements with Edlina, and my big misgivings about his ideas that he really rejects, aren’t on cultural lines.
|
Northern Ireland20683 Posts
On January 01 2020 08:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2020 06:49 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 01 2020 06:27 Danglars wrote:On December 31 2019 14:19 Razyda wrote: Issue with FPTP is as in any other democracy - luck of accountability - but on larger scale. with only 2 parties standing a chance you pretty much not bounded by anything because one way or another you are bound to end up with close to 50% seats. Frankly I dont think that in any other than FPTP system any party would be able to put BlowJob creature as their leader and win election. The landslide victory for your BJ and his capacity to *ahem* get brexit done is quite a recommendation for FPTP. Three cheers. The voters spread across the country were able to express their dissatisfaction with Corbyn/Labor Agenda, and inaction on Brexit, and make their voice resound. This will directly translate into the political might to make it happen, whereas otherwise more dithering would prevail, as did prior to withdrawing the whip and elections. Frankly, comments like this lead me to believe the gripes are mostly inspired by sadness and frustration with the results of election, and less about the structure of the electoral system itself. The fetishization of nearer-direct-democracy systems is also similar. Does 80% of your country live in cities? Why, the more distant citizens should only get 20%. Has it improved to 90%? Those members should only get 10% say, poor suckers. Fuck those people, more want to live around here. We simply aren't satisfied with majority representation we want more than that. I would prefer a more straightforward approach from those very vociferously on the extreme opposite side. Actually argue to carve up your country into separate ones if there's heavy dissatisfaction in the cities about allowing distant geographic areas more than the naive population percent representation. Be the noble ideologue and support the Confederation of Big Cities telling the rest of the country what's best for them. On December 31 2019 22:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Oh look it's danglars and his whole urban voters should have less rights than rural voters schtick. Nevermind that this is the UK thread, not USA, where this sort of "culture war" isn't even a thing. I see you wish this was a discussion about "less rights" and "culture war," but maybe you should wait until the discussion actually turns to those topics and read the posts in the meantime. We’re reasonably aligned on this particular issue, although I would consider it less cultural in my case, more purely economic in basis I guess. I haven’t been describing power sharing in a parliamentary system in cultural terms. It’s much too big of a question for that. Brexit split parties and the most recent election really shook up long-standing rural allegiances ... some more than 80 years. Party platforms change and the same with cultural allegiances. My disagreements with Edlina, and my big misgivings about his ideas that he really rejects, aren’t on cultural lines. I don’t think there’s any rural/city divide in the UK for the most part though, it’s the cities that are doing well vs the cities that are suffering from decades long of industrial decline. It’s Sunderland vs London or whatever
Northern Ireland voted Remain, despite Londoners being annoyed at the DUP giving May her majority, in our particular case because rural voters did vote to Remain because of the CAP and various benefits there.
|
On January 01 2020 08:38 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2020 08:16 Danglars wrote:On January 01 2020 06:49 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 01 2020 06:27 Danglars wrote:On December 31 2019 14:19 Razyda wrote: Issue with FPTP is as in any other democracy - luck of accountability - but on larger scale. with only 2 parties standing a chance you pretty much not bounded by anything because one way or another you are bound to end up with close to 50% seats. Frankly I dont think that in any other than FPTP system any party would be able to put BlowJob creature as their leader and win election. The landslide victory for your BJ and his capacity to *ahem* get brexit done is quite a recommendation for FPTP. Three cheers. The voters spread across the country were able to express their dissatisfaction with Corbyn/Labor Agenda, and inaction on Brexit, and make their voice resound. This will directly translate into the political might to make it happen, whereas otherwise more dithering would prevail, as did prior to withdrawing the whip and elections. Frankly, comments like this lead me to believe the gripes are mostly inspired by sadness and frustration with the results of election, and less about the structure of the electoral system itself. The fetishization of nearer-direct-democracy systems is also similar. Does 80% of your country live in cities? Why, the more distant citizens should only get 20%. Has it improved to 90%? Those members should only get 10% say, poor suckers. Fuck those people, more want to live around here. We simply aren't satisfied with majority representation we want more than that. I would prefer a more straightforward approach from those very vociferously on the extreme opposite side. Actually argue to carve up your country into separate ones if there's heavy dissatisfaction in the cities about allowing distant geographic areas more than the naive population percent representation. Be the noble ideologue and support the Confederation of Big Cities telling the rest of the country what's best for them. On December 31 2019 22:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Oh look it's danglars and his whole urban voters should have less rights than rural voters schtick. Nevermind that this is the UK thread, not USA, where this sort of "culture war" isn't even a thing. I see you wish this was a discussion about "less rights" and "culture war," but maybe you should wait until the discussion actually turns to those topics and read the posts in the meantime. We’re reasonably aligned on this particular issue, although I would consider it less cultural in my case, more purely economic in basis I guess. I haven’t been describing power sharing in a parliamentary system in cultural terms. It’s much too big of a question for that. Brexit split parties and the most recent election really shook up long-standing rural allegiances ... some more than 80 years. Party platforms change and the same with cultural allegiances. My disagreements with Edlina, and my big misgivings about his ideas that he really rejects, aren’t on cultural lines. I don’t think there’s any rural/city divide in the UK for the most part though, it’s the cities that are doing well vs the cities that are suffering from decades long of industrial decline. It’s Sunderland vs London or whatever Northern Ireland voted Remain, despite Londoners being annoyed at the DUP giving May her majority, in our particular case because rural voters did vote to Remain because of the CAP and various benefits there. You would have a better idea why Northern Ireland voted that way, or why the DUP lost two seats in the last election. I just don't know enough and haven't read enough about it (and I chuckled heartily at the suggestion that I was debating a cultural problem with rights lol). It's interesting to think how many old labour voters who would never vote Tory, remembering post-Thatcher Tory policy on unions and domestic industry, actually did change their mind when it came to this election. How much of this was due to personal dislike of Corbyn, or his movement labour's policy platform, or Labour's nebulous position on Brexit is very debatable.
Now, the city/rural divides in power sharing arrangements are a somewhat universal topic in the Western world and have been discussed for 300 years, up towards 1400 years if we're talking about ancient political philosophers. I comment simply because I think a non-proportional system tied to specific localities is the right way to go about things with the parliamentary system. An entire country can't just base its political system on the exact percentage of people with urban concerns. That sort of dominance has to be tempered by defraying power over the middle to smaller towns and country, non-proportionally to population. This can also swing too far into letting smaller localities dictate where the money goes from economic powerhouses, not that I expect this to be a major concern in the next few years.
|
That is a nice way of saying "Some peoples votes (specifically those of people who tend to vote for stuff i like) should count for more than those of others (who vote for stuff i don't like)"
|
Why address what someone actually says when you can just assure everyone what hes actually saying?
|
I comment simply because I think a non-proportional system tied to specific localities is the right way to go about things with the parliamentary system. An entire country can't just base its political system on the exact percentage of people with urban concerns. That sort of dominance has to be tempered by defraying power over the middle to smaller towns and country, non-proportionally to population.
How is that not exactly what i said?
Non-proportional (to the amount of votes) power means some voters have more power than other voters.That is exactly what that means. Some votes count for more than others. The amount they count for is not proportional to the amount of votes.
Danglars has made it very clear that the voters which he thinks should have more power are rural voters, who tend to vote for more right-wing parties on average (which is something Danglars likes), while those who should have less power are urban voters (who tend to vote for more left-wing parties).
So how is my statement above an incorrect summary of his stance on this matter?
|
Again all you are doing is assuming the absolute worst he is saying and assuring everyone thats the only thing he could be saying.
|
On January 01 2020 12:11 Sermokala wrote: Again all you are doing is assuming the absolute worst he is saying and assuring everyone thats the only thing he could be saying.
I read danglars' comments the same way simberto does. I didn't post anything because I thought I must be being stupid or missing something. Surely danglars doesn't want 20% of people to have more than 20% of he power just because they own more land????
That's insane.
It looks like it comes from this arbitrary 'town vs city' divide.
Its like saying 2% of people don't believe in vaccinating their children and 98% of people do so the 2% deserve more power because otherwise its unfair.
I must be missing something. Are we asking for vote strength to be calculated using 'people/metres squared'?
|
Danglars doesn't have any idea of politics in UK. He inserted his American-centric rural voters should count for more than the "other" urban voters aka "city folks" into the UK thread.
This is not even a thing in UK. It'll be akin to inserting a discussion on foxhunting into the US thread. Only Danglars can answer why he feels fit to express this entirely foreign idea into the UK thread.
|
Northern Ireland20683 Posts
On January 01 2020 10:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2020 08:38 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 01 2020 08:16 Danglars wrote:On January 01 2020 06:49 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 01 2020 06:27 Danglars wrote:On December 31 2019 14:19 Razyda wrote: Issue with FPTP is as in any other democracy - luck of accountability - but on larger scale. with only 2 parties standing a chance you pretty much not bounded by anything because one way or another you are bound to end up with close to 50% seats. Frankly I dont think that in any other than FPTP system any party would be able to put BlowJob creature as their leader and win election. The landslide victory for your BJ and his capacity to *ahem* get brexit done is quite a recommendation for FPTP. Three cheers. The voters spread across the country were able to express their dissatisfaction with Corbyn/Labor Agenda, and inaction on Brexit, and make their voice resound. This will directly translate into the political might to make it happen, whereas otherwise more dithering would prevail, as did prior to withdrawing the whip and elections. Frankly, comments like this lead me to believe the gripes are mostly inspired by sadness and frustration with the results of election, and less about the structure of the electoral system itself. The fetishization of nearer-direct-democracy systems is also similar. Does 80% of your country live in cities? Why, the more distant citizens should only get 20%. Has it improved to 90%? Those members should only get 10% say, poor suckers. Fuck those people, more want to live around here. We simply aren't satisfied with majority representation we want more than that. I would prefer a more straightforward approach from those very vociferously on the extreme opposite side. Actually argue to carve up your country into separate ones if there's heavy dissatisfaction in the cities about allowing distant geographic areas more than the naive population percent representation. Be the noble ideologue and support the Confederation of Big Cities telling the rest of the country what's best for them. On December 31 2019 22:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Oh look it's danglars and his whole urban voters should have less rights than rural voters schtick. Nevermind that this is the UK thread, not USA, where this sort of "culture war" isn't even a thing. I see you wish this was a discussion about "less rights" and "culture war," but maybe you should wait until the discussion actually turns to those topics and read the posts in the meantime. We’re reasonably aligned on this particular issue, although I would consider it less cultural in my case, more purely economic in basis I guess. I haven’t been describing power sharing in a parliamentary system in cultural terms. It’s much too big of a question for that. Brexit split parties and the most recent election really shook up long-standing rural allegiances ... some more than 80 years. Party platforms change and the same with cultural allegiances. My disagreements with Edlina, and my big misgivings about his ideas that he really rejects, aren’t on cultural lines. I don’t think there’s any rural/city divide in the UK for the most part though, it’s the cities that are doing well vs the cities that are suffering from decades long of industrial decline. It’s Sunderland vs London or whatever Northern Ireland voted Remain, despite Londoners being annoyed at the DUP giving May her majority, in our particular case because rural voters did vote to Remain because of the CAP and various benefits there. You would have a better idea why Northern Ireland voted that way, or why the DUP lost two seats in the last election. I just don't know enough and haven't read enough about it (and I chuckled heartily at the suggestion that I was debating a cultural problem with rights lol). It's interesting to think how many old labour voters who would never vote Tory, remembering post-Thatcher Tory policy on unions and domestic industry, actually did change their mind when it came to this election. How much of this was due to personal dislike of Corbyn, or his movement labour's policy platform, or Labour's nebulous position on Brexit is very debatable. Now, the city/rural divides in power sharing arrangements are a somewhat universal topic in the Western world and have been discussed for 300 years, up towards 1400 years if we're talking about ancient political philosophers. I comment simply because I think a non-proportional system tied to specific localities is the right way to go about things with the parliamentary system. An entire country can't just base its political system on the exact percentage of people with urban concerns. That sort of dominance has to be tempered by defraying power over the middle to smaller towns and country, non-proportionally to population. This can also swing too far into letting smaller localities dictate where the money goes from economic powerhouses, not that I expect this to be a major concern in the next few years. It’s a complicated world I guess. We’re the most parochial and conservative area of the UK, yet voted to Remain which somewhat goes against some narratives. The nationalist community is largely pro-European ideologically, as are folks like me in the ostensibly non-aligned middle class.
We don’t have a lot of immigration here, especially outside of our capital, so it wasn’t as much of a factor as it was on the mainland. Plus agriculture is a key component in rural communities and local economies, and the EU money comes in handy there. People know this because they see this in action, it’s a tangible thing, vs the more hypothetical ‘we can do this if we’re out of the EU’ that gained traction in the areas suffering post-industrial decline in England and Wales.
Plus, for obvious reasons the bombastic nationalistic rhetoric of restoring British glory does not resonate here in nearly the way it does elsewhere in the UK. That’s not unique to us either, the Scots aren’t a big fan of it either, it’s a particularly English form of nationalism, maybe with a bit of support from some people in Wales and NI
The DUP weren’t really hugely punished in terms of vote share, the SDLP and Sinn Fein just agreed to withdraw candidates in certain constituencies so the nationalist vote wasn’t split.
|
On January 01 2020 19:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2020 12:11 Sermokala wrote: Again all you are doing is assuming the absolute worst he is saying and assuring everyone thats the only thing he could be saying. I read danglars' comments the same way simberto does. I didn't post anything because I thought I must be being stupid or missing something. Surely danglars doesn't want 20% of people to have more than 20% of he power just because they own more land???? That's insane. It looks like it comes from this arbitrary 'town vs city' divide. Its like saying 2% of people don't believe in vaccinating their children and 98% of people do so the 2% deserve more power because otherwise its unfair. I must be missing something. Are we asking for vote strength to be calculated using 'people/metres squared'?
Now, the city/rural divides in power sharing arrangements are a somewhat universal topic in the Western world and have been discussed for 300 years, up towards 1400 years if we're talking about ancient political philosophers. I comment simply because I think a non-proportional system tied to specific localities is the right way to go about things with the parliamentary system. An entire country can't just base its political system on the exact percentage of people with urban concerns. That sort of dominance has to be tempered by defraying power over the middle to smaller towns and country, non-proportionally to population. This can also swing too far into letting smaller localities dictate where the money goes from economic powerhouses, not that I expect this to be a major concern in the next few years. I don't find it arbitrary at all. It doesn't have to align. Maybe rural and urban interests align. It well could happen regarding the NHS, Brexit, immigration, who knows. But if you want powersharing to be directly correlated to population, you're really arguing to divide into two countries: one very populous with little land mass, and another sparse with huge areas of land. I'm supportive of an overall majority to the most populated areas, but totally opposed to letting urban concerns run roughshod over everyone else's.
Why did the country go this direction? Densely populated cities decided it should be this way, but don't worry, we're also going to consider the distant peoples and do what we think's right for them. People should not equal domination factor. Majority rule should not be devolved from the diverse concerns of people all across the land. As I explained to Wombat, I'm not intimately aware of rural concerns in the UK, so all these accusations of ideological bias are foolish projections. It matters not to me what my preferred power sharing system results in, so long as power is shared among groups tied to interests rather than big population masses dictating how things will be in the rest of the country.
On January 02 2020 00:30 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2020 10:06 Danglars wrote:On January 01 2020 08:38 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 01 2020 08:16 Danglars wrote:On January 01 2020 06:49 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 01 2020 06:27 Danglars wrote:On December 31 2019 14:19 Razyda wrote: Issue with FPTP is as in any other democracy - luck of accountability - but on larger scale. with only 2 parties standing a chance you pretty much not bounded by anything because one way or another you are bound to end up with close to 50% seats. Frankly I dont think that in any other than FPTP system any party would be able to put BlowJob creature as their leader and win election. The landslide victory for your BJ and his capacity to *ahem* get brexit done is quite a recommendation for FPTP. Three cheers. The voters spread across the country were able to express their dissatisfaction with Corbyn/Labor Agenda, and inaction on Brexit, and make their voice resound. This will directly translate into the political might to make it happen, whereas otherwise more dithering would prevail, as did prior to withdrawing the whip and elections. Frankly, comments like this lead me to believe the gripes are mostly inspired by sadness and frustration with the results of election, and less about the structure of the electoral system itself. The fetishization of nearer-direct-democracy systems is also similar. Does 80% of your country live in cities? Why, the more distant citizens should only get 20%. Has it improved to 90%? Those members should only get 10% say, poor suckers. Fuck those people, more want to live around here. We simply aren't satisfied with majority representation we want more than that. I would prefer a more straightforward approach from those very vociferously on the extreme opposite side. Actually argue to carve up your country into separate ones if there's heavy dissatisfaction in the cities about allowing distant geographic areas more than the naive population percent representation. Be the noble ideologue and support the Confederation of Big Cities telling the rest of the country what's best for them. On December 31 2019 22:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Oh look it's danglars and his whole urban voters should have less rights than rural voters schtick. Nevermind that this is the UK thread, not USA, where this sort of "culture war" isn't even a thing. I see you wish this was a discussion about "less rights" and "culture war," but maybe you should wait until the discussion actually turns to those topics and read the posts in the meantime. We’re reasonably aligned on this particular issue, although I would consider it less cultural in my case, more purely economic in basis I guess. I haven’t been describing power sharing in a parliamentary system in cultural terms. It’s much too big of a question for that. Brexit split parties and the most recent election really shook up long-standing rural allegiances ... some more than 80 years. Party platforms change and the same with cultural allegiances. My disagreements with Edlina, and my big misgivings about his ideas that he really rejects, aren’t on cultural lines. I don’t think there’s any rural/city divide in the UK for the most part though, it’s the cities that are doing well vs the cities that are suffering from decades long of industrial decline. It’s Sunderland vs London or whatever Northern Ireland voted Remain, despite Londoners being annoyed at the DUP giving May her majority, in our particular case because rural voters did vote to Remain because of the CAP and various benefits there. You would have a better idea why Northern Ireland voted that way, or why the DUP lost two seats in the last election. I just don't know enough and haven't read enough about it (and I chuckled heartily at the suggestion that I was debating a cultural problem with rights lol). It's interesting to think how many old labour voters who would never vote Tory, remembering post-Thatcher Tory policy on unions and domestic industry, actually did change their mind when it came to this election. How much of this was due to personal dislike of Corbyn, or his movement labour's policy platform, or Labour's nebulous position on Brexit is very debatable. Now, the city/rural divides in power sharing arrangements are a somewhat universal topic in the Western world and have been discussed for 300 years, up towards 1400 years if we're talking about ancient political philosophers. I comment simply because I think a non-proportional system tied to specific localities is the right way to go about things with the parliamentary system. An entire country can't just base its political system on the exact percentage of people with urban concerns. That sort of dominance has to be tempered by defraying power over the middle to smaller towns and country, non-proportionally to population. This can also swing too far into letting smaller localities dictate where the money goes from economic powerhouses, not that I expect this to be a major concern in the next few years. It’s a complicated world I guess. We’re the most parochial and conservative area of the UK, yet voted to Remain which somewhat goes against some narratives. The nationalist community is largely pro-European ideologically, as are folks like me in the ostensibly non-aligned middle class. We don’t have a lot of immigration here, especially outside of our capital, so it wasn’t as much of a factor as it was on the mainland. Plus agriculture is a key component in rural communities and local economies, and the EU money comes in handy there. People know this because they see this in action, it’s a tangible thing, vs the more hypothetical ‘we can do this if we’re out of the EU’ that gained traction in the areas suffering post-industrial decline in England and Wales. Plus, for obvious reasons the bombastic nationalistic rhetoric of restoring British glory does not resonate here in nearly the way it does elsewhere in the UK. That’s not unique to us either, the Scots aren’t a big fan of it either, it’s a particularly English form of nationalism, maybe with a bit of support from some people in Wales and NI The DUP weren’t really hugely punished in terms of vote share, the SDLP and Sinn Fein just agreed to withdraw candidates in certain constituencies so the nationalist vote wasn’t split. NI concerns are pretty neglected in American foreign reporting. Thanks for bringing up European ideological union and a non-aligned middle class perspective.
|
Danglars I never accused you of ideological concerns in regards to this, I just disagree that votes should be weighted depending on how much space there is per person
Let's take this to the logical extreme.
Its the UK in 2090, and every single person in the country lives in 5 mega cities, except 1 guy. How much power do you give that guy? How much is his vote worth compared to everyone else?
The other thing that i think is wrong about this is that it kind of assumes that government has no role in deciding which concerns to prioritize.
For example, I can definitely see a situation where people living in cities would pressure the government to enact policy that would directly hurt farming (For example). The government's job is to say no in this case, not to change what a vote means.
Honestly it doesn't read to me like ideology, more like people in rural areas being special snowflakes and crying because everyone else decided to go to the city. Its a US thing much, much more than a UK thing. There isn't enough space in the UK between where our rural areas are and where our cities are that it separates people like I imagine it does in the US.
The UK has something similar, but its more like London vs everyone else instead of rural vs city.
|
Also, why is it exactly the rural-urban divide within which some people get more power and others get less? What about rich and poor? (Though admittedly the rich already have hugely overproportional representation there, too) What about intelligent and stupid people? People working in government and others? Religious or nonreligious? People who drive cars and people who don't? People who use the internet and those who don't? Healthy people or sick people? Young or old? People who are me, and people who are not me?
You can find lots and lots of different ways to divide the population into different subsets. Why is rural and urban the subset division where some should obviously get more power, while others get less? What is so special about that divide compared to any of the huge set of other possible divides you could think about? And who gets to decide which subsets need additional overproportional representation, and which don't?
|
Norway28256 Posts
I don't mind having some mechanisms in place to avoid smaller and less populous regions being consistently overruled or ignored in parliamentary proceedings. Norway also has a version of this - our 18 counties have a number of representatives calculated both based on the amount of people living in the county and the geographical size of the county. It leads to Oslo, with its 610k inhabitants all situated in one city, having 19 representatives, while Finnmark, with its 73k people with 0.6 square km per human, having 5. That gives us 32000 per representative for Oslo, and 14700 for Finnmark.
(Every other county aside from Finnmark is in the 26k-32k range, so while it was chosen to illustrate as an extreme, it's not really representative, as 98% of the population at most experience a 15% difference in how much their vote matters compared to others. Imo there are also some historical reasons (abuse of indigenous people) for why Finnmark specifically deserves special treatment in terms of getting their voice heard and not being ignored, so while the numbers immediately resonate with me as a bit outrageous, I am fine with this policy in practice, although I wish the goal they wanted to accomplish was done through a different method which didn't require differently tiered votes.) One important thing to note is that we also have proportional representation, and a system of calculating 'wasted' votes in various counties, and this diminishes the overall effect it has on the makeup of the parliament, but there has been at least one instance of a narrow minority of the population forming a narrow majority government.
Anyway, while I have objections to some votes mattering more than others in determining national policy, I also see why one would want to avoid that smaller, less populous regions are consistently ignored and them losing all self-determination. If, hypothetically, you have a country comprised of 10 counties and one of them has 51% of the population and 51% of the representation, it's easy to picture that region using the power to further centralize power. At the same time, while I understand the need for actual representation, I can't see any reason or argument for why people from less populated regions should have more say in dictating foreign policy.
I believe that people find some value out of the idea that they are self-deterministic, and I think that on a democratic level, this manifests best the most involved you yourself are. It's easier to get that impression in smaller communities and smaller regions, and this is a reason why you want impactful local democracy. But I'd rather see this goal, that smaller regions should maintain autonomy and not be reduced to subjects, accomplished through increased importance and potency of local democracy than through their votes mattering more for federal elections. In the US, this can manifest for example through continuing to support the makeup of the Senate, to ensure that all states have some real representation, while also thinking the electoral college doesn't make any sense and that the presidential election should be a simple majority vote contest.
As a final addendum, Norway's primary reason for not joining the EU is that our majority feeling is that our small population would make us entirely insignificant in designing policy, and that having (kinda hypothetically as we basically never use it) some veto power in what policies to enact is preferable to having a useless voice. Which might well be regarded as a selfish choice, but my point is that you want to avoid counties within a country or states within a federation feeling like how Norway feels regarding the EU if you also want that country or federation to be strong and stable.
|
|
|
|