advertisement


UK, and USA, Voting FPTP Systems

Note that voting is compulsory in Australia, no matter which system is in use :

Again, the summary:

Voting is Compulsory
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election".

Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box.

It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions:

  • High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380
  • Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807
  • High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271
  • Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte
  • Krosch [1974] QdR 107
  • ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13
On a related matter, it is also an offence under the Electoral Act to remove a ballot paper from a polling place.

As voting is compulsory, electors are given a number of ways to cast their vote at an election, including postal voting, pre-poll voting, absent voting, voting at Australian overseas missions and voting at mobile teams at hospitals and nursing homes and in remote localities, as well as ordinary voting at a polling place in their electorate.
 
A bird is free to run and fly in a cage. Is it free ? You can say it is free within the limits of the cage, in which case it is not free at all.
 
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...

The idea for me is to get them into parliament and expose them to reality. If they continue to make progress in parliament with more seats etc well then unfortunately you will realise that you are living in a democracy that supports their view.
 
Not arguing one way or the other but as a data point, in the 2015 election, Ukip would have been third largest party under PR

PR vs FPTP

Conservative 240 vs 331
Labour 198 vs 232
UKIP 82 vs 1
LD 51 vs 8
SNP 31 vs 56
Green 25 vs 1

If those figures you quote are correct it is a very accurate snapshot of where the UK is at. Don't forget though parties and voters would approach a PR election completely differently to your current system.
 
Free speech is a tricky one. The UK government is keen to 'protect' free speech by preventing student unions and the like from 'no platforming' those with whose views said students disagree. But the same UK government is also keen to prevent the dissemination of views which it believes will promote 'extremism'. Then you have social media outlets banning people temporarily or permanently because their views are 'unacceptable', and Facebook blocking news in Australia because of a row with the Australian government.

Very few people are in favour of complete freedom of speech, but there are multiple view about precisely how, and why, free speech should be limited.
 
Coming from Denmark which has a PR system, it's definitely sometimes frustrating to observe with different competing factions and the horse-trading that goes on around election time and when passing major new legislation. However, in the long run I don't think we'd gain anything from FPTP instead - and probably the opposite.

My conclusion: If democracy is the least worst form of government, then PR is probably the least worst form of democracy ;)
 
Free speech is a tricky one. The UK government is keen to 'protect' free speech by preventing student unions and the like from 'no platforming' those with whose views said students disagree. But the same UK government is also keen to prevent the dissemination of views which it believes will promote 'extremism'. Then you have social media outlets banning people temporarily or permanently because their views are 'unacceptable', and Facebook blocking news in Australia because of a row with the Australian government.

Very few people are in favour of complete freedom of speech, but there are multiple view about precisely how, and why, free speech should be limited.

That's purely a financial thing : Facebook are being asked to pay for the Australian content they run on their websites, which is not uncommon in most other places. Google were required to pay by the Oz government and initially refused.

I'd point out Google were charged by the French government for a similar thing, with which they subsequently had to agree mostly because it could become the UE standard. Facebook now has a French branch, so they have to pay French taxes, which they had underpaid by 106 million euros. Their comment was:

"This year, we also reached an agreement with the tax authorities covering the years 2009 – 2018, under which we will pay a settlement of 106 million euros. We take our tax obligations seriously and work closely with tax authorities around the world to ensure compliance with all applicable tax laws and to resolve any disputes, as we have done with the French tax authorities,” as reported in quite a few media outlets.

The whole Facebook thing in Oz is only happening because Facebook think Australia is too small to object so the government will be forced to change their policy. Me, I hope Zuckerberg falls flat on his arse.
 
Freedom of speech, not freedom of hate speech. I really don't know why people have a problem grasping this.
There are lots of ways in which we are not ‘free’, because we have laws which limit us. I’m not sure why some people have a problem with this in respect of freedom of expression in particular. It’s an important right, but not transcendentally so.
 
I know this has been mentioned (umpteen times...) before, but still - a good "benchmark" from my POV...

free_speech.png
 
the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.

I don't know of any country that allows such unfettered free speech. But, strictly speaking, limited free speech is, as you say, not free by definition. As H L Mencken put it: 'But the right to freedom obviously includes the right to be foolish. If what I say must be passed over for its sagacity by censors, however wise and prudent, then I have no free speech.'
 


advertisement


Back
Top