UK, and USA, Voting FPTP Systems

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Perhaps we're asking the wrong question. Rather than ask 'what's the best way to elect representatives to Parliament?' we should be asking 'Is Parliament the best way to run the country?'

There's at least a discussion to be had over whether we'd do better if we had big decisions of policy, etc, decided via the use of regional and local Citizens' Assemblies and Citizens' Juries, or similar, rather than by elected 'representatives' whose record of representing the interests of the people they represent is sketchy, at best.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Frankly, it doesn't seem to have hurt Germany.

I know. But can you imagine the UK doing it as well?

 

[Seeker_UK]

Perhaps we're asking the wrong question. Rather than ask 'what's the best way to elect representatives to Parliament?' we should be asking 'Is Parliament the best way to run the country?'

There's at least a discussion to be had over whether we'd do better if we had big decisions of policy, etc, decided via the use of regional and local Citizens' Assemblies and Citizens' Juries, or similar, rather than by elected 'representatives' whose record of representing the interests of the people they represent is sketchy, at best.

Where appropriate, that should work but for big ticket national decisions or crises. No.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Can you explain why you think not, for those cases?

The methodology for arriving at a decision for a Citizens' Assembly is rigorous. My feeling is that a more rigorous methodology might have avoided some of the errors and omissions that led to the first and second peaks being so terrible, and our death toll being so high. I see precious little evidence that the cabinet, or entire the ruling party, is equipped with the brains, and the ethical stance, that makes it better equipped to make these decisions.

And we'd see much less of the cronyism and graft that has awarded billions to mates, in dodgy contracts. The Good Law Project has just announced, by the way, that it has won its judicial review against the government on these.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Can you explain why you think not, for those cases?

There will be times where a quick response to a crisis or major international / national event is required. With the best will and system in place and all the planets aligning, I cannot see a network of citizens' assemblies responding as quickly or have access to the right information and experience.

 

[Thorn]

You surely all know that PR will immediately boost the chances of the alt-right in the UK, as it did in France and Germany to name a few ? Not that they would ever enter a government, but they could play nasty games with their, say, 10 per cent of the votes provided they unite. OTOH it could work in favour of Labour in the end...

As Tony says in another post, it'll also boost the chances of the Unprincipled Opportunist Party and the One-Trick Pony Party.

 

[DaveMc64]

That is one very precise and atypical moment in time.

That's a fair point but my post was a response to the suggestion that "If a small minority of them were from UKIP, or some legitimate far right party, that would be manageable" observing that at times they've not been a small minority.

In the previous election (2010) UKIP would have got 20 and the BNP 12 seats under PR. Greens would have got 6.

I am, however, in favour of some sort of PR but I do think there are issues that probably need to be addressed.

 

[Tony L]

In the previous election (2010) UKIP would have got 20 and the BNP 12 seats under PR. Greens would have got 6.

I am, however, in favour of some sort of PR but I do think there are issues that probably need to be addressed.

The key thing is those voting patterns would change quite radically as anyone with an IQ over about 90 grasps that FPTP is stacked and tends to vote tactically to some degree, or as a protest knowing their vote will not end in representation. I suspect England is a somewhat uglier and more tribal place than much of PR Europe, but even so I’d be surprised if the far-right became dominant. My guess is currently disenfranchised younger voters would in time become a powerful force and push a very strong new green & left/liberal agenda. The point I’m trying to make is simple extrapolation of existing voteshare is likely a very bad dataset. I suspect the first post-PR election would still split largely on institutional Tory/Labour lines as a lot of folk would need time to better understand the new system, but after that point I’d expect a very different dynamic to emerge.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

There will be times where a quick response to a crisis or major international / national event is required. With the best will and system in place and all the planets aligning, I cannot see a network of citizens' assemblies responding as quickly or have access to the right information and experience.

I think these sort of things are generally actually dealt with by the relevant bits of the Civil Service or wider public sector (NHS, police, etc) and the stark differences between how the vaccination (NHS) has gone, compared to PPE procurement (Guvmint), suggests that often, putting a crisis in the hands of government is not the best option. The government’s job is to decide policy and set direction. If an urgent crisis comes which isn’t already covered by existing policy and direction, it’s far from obvious that government, in its present form, is equipped in any way to deal with it.

 

[Seeker_UK]

...it’s far from obvious that government, in its present form, is equipped in any way to deal with it.

I think you're basing that on your view of who's in government, not it's structure.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I think you're basing that on your view of who's in government, not it's structure.

I take the point, but I don’t agree. The present shower are a particularly egregious example of what goes wrong, but we’ve had shambolic and disastrous responses to crises from all flavours of government. I have this feeling that if we had fewer leaders, we’d also have fewer wars, for example.

 

[Seeker_UK]

I have this feeling that if we had fewer leaders, we’d also have fewer wars, for example.

I think you're letting one particular PMs decision to support the US colour your view.

 

[Deejay]

I’m all for PR. It’s a much fairer and democratic way of voting.

The current FPTP system disproportionately benefits the two main parties and disadvantages the other ones. Take the 2015 General Election, I think the Greens had one million votes but only one seat, and as much as I don’t like UKIP, they had more votes than SNP and had no seats to show for it while the SNP had a shed load.

Reform needed urgently although I doubt it would happen as that wouldn’t be in the interests of the Tories or Labour.

 

[avole]

It’s like the free speech argument, in a way. People have a right to say what they like, within limits. It’s a human right. So Freedom of expression includes the right to espouse political views, again within limits. Which implies the right to associate with like minded people, eg, in the context of a political party.

Provided the political party isn’t proscribed, people should be able to vote for it, and as a minority they should be afforded the same sort of rights as other minorities. In principle, at least. So the fact that PR would be more likely to give these minority interests a voice, is, in principle, a desirable outcome.

You can’t just give rights to people you like or agree with.

Perhaps the better way to tackle the problem of minorities having disproportionate influence would be to improve education so that fewer people support the undesirable minority parties in the first place.

Utter nonsense. Free speech allows anyone to say what they want, because (and I understand the idea is a complex one) if you limit free speech, then, guess what, you DO NOT have free speech. Your last two paragraphs are simply nonsensical. I may rag you, but normally your arguments at least make sense.

Also, and on a more serious note, have a look at this paper, which covers many of the available options even if focussed on the Australian electoral systems. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...s/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP0708/08rp05

 

[avole]

Here's the summary:

The Australian electorate has experienced three types of voting system First Past the Post, Preferential Voting and Proportional Representation (Single Transferable Vote).

First Past the Post was used for the first Australian parliamentary elections held in 1843 for the New South Wales Legislative Council and for most colonial elections during the second half of the nineteenth century. Since then there have been alterations to the various electoral systems in use around the country. These alterations have been motivated by three factors: a desire to find the perfect system, to gain political advantage, or by the need to deal with faulty electoral system arrangements.

Today, two variants of Preferential Voting and two variants of Proportional Representation are used for all Australian parliamentary elections. This paper has two primary concerns: firstly, explaining in detail the way each operates, the nature of the ballot paper and how the votes are counted; and secondly, the political consequences of the use of each system. Appendix 1 gives examples of other Australian models used over the years and Appendix 2 lists those currently in use in Commonwealth elections as well as in the states and territories.

• Under Full Preferential Voting each candidate must be given a preference by the voter. This system favours the major parties; can sometimes award an election to the party that wins fewer votes than its major opponent; usually awards the party with the largest number of votes a disproportionate number of seats; and occasionally gives benefits to the parties that manufacture a three-cornered contest in a particular seat.
• With Optional Preferential Voting the voter may allocate preferences to as few as one candidate. This system can produce similar outcomes to full Preferential Voting, but can also produce results where the winning candidate wins with less than half of the votes. It also clearly lessens the importance of preferences in many seats.
• The Proportional Representation system used in Senate elections increases the chances of minor parties and independents winning seats, produces closer results in the struggle between the major parties, and makes it difficult for a major party to gain control of the Senate.
• The Hare-Clark system ensures that no seat is safe, creates an electoral system where party members fight each other as much as their external opponents, and operates in such a way that minority governments are more common than when Preferential Voting is used.

Despite parliamentary enquiries after each Commonwealth election, there is generally little call for major changes to be made to Australian electoral systems. On balance it seems that Australia has found arrangements that suit the needs of its people, its parties and its parliamentarians.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Utter nonsense. Free speech allows anyone to say what they want, because (and I understand the idea is a complex one) if you limit free speech, then, guess what, you DO NOT have free speech. Your last two paragraphs are simply nonsensical. I may rag you, but normally your arguments at least make sense.

Well, unlike your opinion above, my thinking is based firmly in the law. The Human Rights Act, hence why I described it as a human right. But if you look at Article 10 of the HRA you find that, shock horror, the state has the right to set limits on free speech, in the interests of the proper functioning of a democratic society.

You know that law against hate speech, the one that makes it a criminal offence to incite hatred or violence, promote terrorism, or other bad stuff? That’s the state’s response to setting limits to free speech.

So crack on, and your confidence in the veracity of your opinion is amusing so please don’t stop, but there’s only one of us dribbling bollocks on this thread, and it’s not me.

 

[sean99]

For 2019 UKIP seats go back to Tories and / or Brexit Party

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...have-looked-with-proportional-representation/

To state the obvious, it's quite likely that the minority parties would have even more representation than shown, because PR would greatly decrease the incentive for tactical voting, and I suspect (though with no proof) that a lot of tactical voting went on in 2019.

 

[sean99]

Regarding the OP the situation in the US seems very bleak. PR isn't even discussed, campaign finance law allows moneyed interests to bury legislation that might favor people over corporations, and the republicans enjoy such an overwhelming political advantage in the Senate that the chances of getting the required super majorities required to offset this are near zero.

 

[andrewd]

I like the Australian system of preferential voting for the house of representatives.
It mitigates the need for tactical voting, thereby allowing you to vote for the party that best represents your views.
By ranking the remaining candidates your vote will not be wasted. Preferences only come into play if no candidate gets over a 50% of the vote.

 

[avole]

Well, unlike your opinion above, my thinking is based firmly in the law. The Human Rights Act, hence why I described it as a human right. But if you look at Article 10 of the HRA you find that, shock horror, the state has the right to set limits on free speech, in the interests of the proper functioning of a democratic society.

You know that law against hate speech, the one that makes it a criminal offence to incite hatred or violence, promote terrorism, or other bad stuff? That’s the state’s response to setting limits to free speech.

So crack on, and your confidence in the veracity of your opinion is amusing so please don’t stop, but there’s only one of us dribbling bollocks on this thread, and it’s me.

Corrected for you