Voter suppression: UK Voter ID

[Tony L]

No democratic system is perfect but the FPTP system is the most practical in the sense that the majority view tends to prevail over that of minority parties.

As someone who spent an entire life pushing corporate spreadsheets you should have a sufficient level of numeracy to grasp no party under our rigged and deliberately biased system has ever won a majority. Certainly not since working people and women eventually won voting rights from land-owning Tory elites and aristocracy.

As an example even Britain Trump’s “landslide” was IIRC only 43% of a 69% turnout, so an actual mandate of 28%. The low turnout speaks volumes, so many seats in this rigged system are ‘safe’ career seats for life for a major party to the extent millions and millions of us are entirely disenfranchised. It is genuinely an insult to our intelligence to vote in a Tory or Labour safe seat. A futile waste of time as our vote will never be counted. It will never result in representation. Just 28% can quite literally destroy a country and send it to the very brink of fascism, and even then most of them will have buyers remorse by now, yet have no way to stop the destruction for another year or so.

There is a shift happening. The penny is dropping. The old gammons are dying. It will take another decade or two, but it will happen. The young folk of today have access to far better information than your generation or mine. They understand what is happening and the damage the system you support has done to them.

 

[PaulMB]

No democratic system is perfect but the FPTP system is the most practical in the sense that the majority view tends to prevail over that of minority parties.

Your type trying to convince voters to come around to your type of mindset is as about as pointless as me trying to convince the pfm members to come around to mine.

What you are doing here is just preaching to the converted, you need to start convincing the electorate. I hardly come here because I know I am wasting my time. That's the reality we both have to accept.

Practical, yes. But also brutal in eliminating any compromise in the policy of the winning party. The most "practical" form of government is pure dictatorship. In a sense, with the FPTP system the result is the dictatorship of a single party, which is made up of lots of different people so is preferable to the dictatorship of a single charismatic individual.

 

[Tony L]

In a sense, with the FPTP system the result is the dictatorship of a single party, which is made up of lots of different people so is preferable to the dictatorship of a single charismatic individual.

Both Johnson and Trump were that ‘charismatic individual’ upon which dictatorships are built. They have both failed, but both have left their nations divided and destroyed to a very large degree.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Sorry but this does not make sense. Or, rather, it does, but is not a valid argument. You cannot pit "Tory" against "non-Tory," because the latter includes everything from the Greens to the UK Communist Party (does it still exist?) to the extreme right. Can you imagine a coalition of that lot?

That wasn't my argument, though. I was using the point to refute Mick's assertion that the majority tends to get what it wants under our system. I was arguing that not only does the winning party seize power with a minority of the voters' support, but moreover they can't even claim that the majority are content with what they get.

 

[Andrew C!]

The irony of the previous few posts isn't lost on me.

As a Neighbourhood Insp, I had to represent all of a given community. Elected officials at public meetings used to say various degrees of the same thing, when after a little research it showed in some cases they were elected by less than 50% of a very low voter turn out. factually, for various reasons, they didn't in some cases get any more than 155 of a voting electorate.

For me, that is what needs to change - but I'm not sure how you get voter confidence back into politics which, for the last 30-40 years has been anything but transparent in certain cases.

 

[Nick_G]

The irony of the previous few posts isn't lost on me.

As a Neighbourhood Insp, I had to represent all of a given community. Elected officials at public meetings used to say various degrees of the same thing, when after a little research it showed in some cases they were elected by less than 50% of a very low voter turn out. factually, for various reasons, they didn't in some cases get any more than 155 of a voting electorate.

For me, that is what needs to change - but I'm not sure how you get voter confidence back into politics which, for the last 30-40 years has been anything but transparent in certain cases.

Making it a criminal offence to knowingly lie & mislead the public (or Parliament) for your own gains would be a good start...

 

[Richard Lines]

If two people stand against each the winner takes the job and the loser walks away to lick his wounds because the electorate rejected him and that is how it should be.

The problem with that view is that neither of the two big parties are addressing the issues that really need addressing and any parties that do address these issues have policies people don't want to hear.

We are, globally, in an unprecedented situation so "More of the same" really isn't going to cut it.........., however, realistically, we're stuffed....

Regards

Richard

 

[Mick P]

Richard

If the two main parties are not addressing important issues, then simply stay away from the polling station.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Richard

If the two main parties are not addressing important issues, then simply stay away from the polling station.

Which then means the two main parties still get elected, by an even smaller subset of the population. And the non voters are voiceless. Your solution seems to be: don’t like our democracy, have less democracy instead then.

 

[Richard Lines]

You seem to imply that the public are idiots and easily fooled

The public only want to hear what they want to hear - you only have to look at the reaction to the ULEZ to see how the Great British public react to a very simple indication of things that need to change.

Lots of fires in the southern parts of the Mediterranean - but did it stop anybody from continuing to fly there on their holidays??? Anybody with an average IQ could see they're contributing in some small part to the problem but it didn't stop them going did it.

I would counter that maybe the public are idiots by that measure. YMMV

Regards

Richard

 

[Richard Lines]

If the two main parties are not addressing important issues, then simply stay away from the polling station.

Seriously - you've just gone on ignore

Regards

Richard

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Seriously - you've just gone on ignore

Regards

Richard

Which is basically his advice for people who don’t like what they are offered at the ballot box: put them all on ignore.

 

[kensalriser]

The public only want to hear what they want to hear - you only have to look at the reaction to the ULEZ to see how the Great British public react to a very simple indication of things that need to change.

Lots of fires in the southern parts of the Mediterranean - but did it stop anybody from continuing to fly there on their holidays??? Anybody with an average IQ could see they're contributing in some small part to the problem but it didn't stop them going did it.

I would counter that maybe the public are idiots by that measure. YMMV

Regards

Richard

We know the public are idiots. Brexit and everything that followed made that very clear. They are easily misled and very suggestible to bad actors. I suspect, however, they're not quite as stupid as this government seems to think.

 

[PaulMB]

That wasn't my argument, though. I was using the point to refute Mick's assertion that the majority tends to get what it wants under our system. I was arguing that not only does the winning party seize power with a minority of the voters' support, but moreover they can't even claim that the majority are content with what they get.

Yes, you are right. But this also happens with PR. If a coalition forms a government supported by 54% of Parliament, but only 50% of the electorate actually voted, then that coalition government was elected by 27% of "the people." Admittedly, the mechanism is much less brutal than FPTP.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Yes, you are right. But this also happens with PR. If a coalition forms a government supported by 54% of Parliament, but only 50% of the electorate actually voted, then that coalition government was elected by 27% of "the people." Admittedly, the mechanism is much less brutal than FPTP.

The difference with PR, as we have said before, is that unless your vote is for a wildly minority interest, it is likely that your vote will contribute to an overall share in representation in proportion to the number who share your interests. Which means that, even if they are a minority voice, the voice gets to be heard and, in some cases, can form allegiances with other like-minded minorities to bring about change. With our 'winner takes all' system, as advocated for by Mick, losing minorities cease to matter for 5 years as far as government is concerned and can safely be ignored.

 

[PaulMB]

Richard

If the two main parties are not addressing important issues, then simply stay away from the polling station.

No, that does not help at all. The virtuous answer is to get personally involved in politics in whatever party or movement comes closest to one's principles. But, of course, easier said than done.

 

[PaulMB]

The difference with PR, as we have said before, is that unless your vote is for a wildly minority interest, it is likely that your vote will contribute to an overall share in representation in proportion to the number who share your interests. Which means that, even if they are a minority voice, the voice gets to be heard and, in some cases, can form allegiances with other like-minded minorities to bring about change. With our 'winner takes all' system, as advocated for by Mick, losing minorities cease to matter for 5 years as far as government is concerned and can safely be ignored.

True!

 

[Richard Lines]

Over the last 30yrs my vote hasn't resulted in the candidate I voted for getting elected - disenfranchised doesn't even get close.........

Regards

Richard

 

[Seanm]

British gover

The public only want to hear what they want to hear - you only have to look at the reaction to the ULEZ to see how the Great British public react to a very simple indication of things that need to change.

Lots of fires in the southern parts of the Mediterranean - but did it stop anybody from continuing to fly there on their holidays??? Anybody with an average IQ could see they're contributing in some small part to the problem but it didn't stop them going did it.

I would counter that maybe the public are idiots by that measure. YMMV

Regards

Richard

ULEZ is a good example of how all this works: a niche issue taken up by the press, both parties and broadcast media and used to beat the public over the head until they’re enraged by it or more likely numbed and alienated by the relentless stupidity and triviality of the whole spectacle. Result: disengagement and bad feeling. As a bonus, media fills up with politicians and pundits lambasting the public for being disengaged, ill-informed and angry.

 

[Andrew C!]

Lots of fires in the southern parts of the Mediterranean - but did it stop anybody from continuing to fly there on their holidays??? Anybody with an average IQ could see they're contributing in some small part to the problem but it didn't stop them going did it.

Yes, I did think this…