EPTThen again, The Brits amazed the world when they voted against proportional representation voting reform.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 414
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
Then again, The Brits amazed the world when they voted against proportional representation voting reform. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Should be a meme. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On February 02 2016 14:44 Nyxisto wrote: Thinking that FPTP is a good voting system makes me undemocratic? It is a good system because it keeps out minorities is what you basically argued. We can trust the people only when they vote for Merkel or the SPD right... And do not forget, if you're unemployed or uneducated - or both - just don't vote please. You're too dangerous. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
To give an example, I think a Syriza influenced social democratic government would have done more for the people than the way too extreme Syriza government that had to turn 180 degrees around after noticing that they won't get stuff just because they promised it to their electorate. That just ended in zero progress and even more disappointment. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10937 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22494 Posts
It destroys opposition parties that would normally gather enough % to provide some counter voice. It makes it impossible for new parties to form and just pushes everything into 2 major sides. I have no love for extremist but they are citizens like you and me and their opinions are no less valid in a democratic system. And your arguing it will reduce populism? Have you seen the US lately? It doesn't seem to stop the Trump populist BS train. It actually leaves those who disagree with him but don't support the Democrats with no place to go and voters with no one to represent their idea's is terrible in a democracy. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
 | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6306 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10937 Posts
On February 02 2016 20:22 RvB wrote: FPTP is ridiculous indeed. Just look at last elections in GB where the SNP got more seats with a lot less votes than both UKIP and the Liberal Democrats. That can be fine... Voting purely by population is also pretty dumb. In Switzerland in the "big" chamber each canton gets an amount of delegates according to its population and in the small chamber every canton sends 2 delegates. No winner takes all anywhere tho. Seems like a pretty decent system, no one gets totally screwed but the big population centres have more weight. More extrem persons/parties can get in the big chamber but most likely will have Trouble getting a big foothold in the small chamber (where there are way less delegates). | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9330 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6306 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10937 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On February 02 2016 21:10 RvB wrote: Why is voting purely by population dumb? Every vote should be equal no matter what. Sure big population centres will be more influential but they also have more people so I don't see anything wrong with that. Might as well just separate urban and non-urban into two different countries because most of the time their interests are mutually incompatible. At the end of the day, the rural folks would be disenfranchised since their vote would be mostly meaningless. You can't have a functioning country when one segment of population dominates another politically. The US is becoming more extreme in this case every year. Something has to give eventually. It's like stretching a taut rubber-band even more. It's not a sustainable political system imho. Imagine if NY got 7 senators because of their population and places like Montana and Wyoming only got 1. If you thought secession / independence talk was hot now-a-days or in 1855, it would pale in comparison to the revolts in the disenfranchised states. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6306 Posts
On February 02 2016 21:17 Velr wrote: By that logic you can also abolish human rights in favour of "true" democracy. Argueing in extremes is useless. A FPTP system does not prevent that anyway. We have a constitution and things like that too. On February 02 2016 21:24 Wegandi wrote: Might as well just separate urban and non-urban into two different countries because most of the time their interests are mutually incompatible. At the end of the day, the rural folks would be disenfranchised since their vote would be mostly meaningless. You can't have a functioning country when one segment of population dominates another politically. The US is becoming more extreme in this case every year. Something has to give eventually. It's like stretching a taut rubber-band even more. It's not a sustainable political system imho. Imagine if NY got 7 senators because of their population and places like Montana and Wyoming only got 1. If you thought secession / independence talk was hot now-a-days or in 1855, it would pale in comparison to the revolts in the disenfranchised states. I am not familiar enough with the US political system to accurately respond tbh. An extra vriable in the US is that it's a 2 party system. In The Netherlands it's purely popular vote but I don't see that same split in our electorate. Non-urban votes are pretty well represented trough parties as well. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
The mystery of why FPTP was voted to be kept was because the vast majority of voters do vote for the main political parties that receive the benefits of a FPTP system. it also doesn't help that rather obviously the main political parties have a lot more ability in persuading people to vote for the system which best keep them relevent. Unlike USA, there isn't a as big a gap between rural and urban voters. Granted Labour strongholds are inner cities and Conservative strongholds are rural areas, but gerrymandering doesn't occur, the cultures are similar and generally speaking each MP do represent roughly the same amount of people as opposed to USA, where it is astonishing to an external observer the power that rural states have over urban states. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On February 02 2016 21:42 RvB wrote: Argueing in extremes is useless. A FPTP system does not prevent that anyway. We have a constitution and things like that too. I am not familiar enough with the US political system to accurately respond tbh. An extra vriable in the US is that it's a 2 party system. In The Netherlands it's purely popular vote but I don't see that same split in our electorate. Non-urban votes are pretty well represented trough parties as well. Are your representatives apportioned equally throughout your states/provinces? It's fine to use popular vote for things like proportional representation, but not for determining the numbers of Representatives / Senators / whatever your equivalents are. IIRC aren't the Netherlands still a Monarchy with a Parliamentary system? Here in the US we use a fusion of each. Each State gets 2 Senators no matter what, and the Senate has its own powers that the House of Representatives doesn't, and vice versa. The House of Representatives is based on population (iirc each 150k = 1 Rep) and is revised every 10 years (iirc). The purpose of which is that the Senate was made to represent the States (but that was fucked up with an Amendment that made Senators popular votes...but I digress) and since they held more power they made each State equally represented in order to not give no one State a dominate power - no sane State who had fewer population would ever willingly enter in toto to a Government without this imho. The House is meant to represent the people, and hence, is based on population and generally has different, less influential power overall than the Senate. The Senate and House is supposed to check each other since a bill has to pass both chambers to go to the President. What you're saying is that all power should be representative based on population - which would disenfranchise huge swaths of folks. Not even Greece was this dumb. Any country who instituted such a system would not last very long. The US system was modeled very heavily on the Iroquois Confederation, the early Roman Republic, and Enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Montisqueu. It's a testament that the US has lasted for over 220+ years with the same general Governmental system, but it's being eroded more and more. If you could I would like to know more in depth the Dutch system so I can have a better comparative understanding. | ||
| ||
