What do we want from democracy?

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

So a return to cat o’9 tails and hanging then if vox pops is accurate.

Not really, Bob. Citizens juries are a long way from vox pops. I observed one in action a year or so before lockdown started and it was a remarkable process.

My feeling is that, assuming ditching FPTP isn't a short term option, perhaps we could get an elected upper chamber via PR, and a third 'chamber' of citizen participation via this sort of means.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Just to summarise my understanding of your position, so as not to be thought to be misrepresenting it: you prefer FPTP because the government you vote for, based on their manifesto, is what you get (if they win); whereas with PR, the horse-trading after the election means it's not clear what bits of which manifesto will actually see the light of day. Apologies if that's an oversimplification.

Yes, but it's only part of my issue with the concept of PR being the answer to a maiden's prayer.

My problem with that is that broken manifesto promises are pretty much a given anyway, so you don't really know what you're voting for. And more than that, the parties have, in their more underhand moments, taken to burying some of their more dubious objectives deep in the small print of the manifesto where they'll probably escape scrutiny. Assuming the electorate troubles itself enough to read the manifestos in the first place.

Manifesto promises get thrown under the bus because 'events, dear boy' or because Treasury won't fund them, or any number of plausible reasons. So all you can really rely on is a subjective assessment of the ideological stance of the parties as a guide. So you don't really, deep down, know with any degree of certainty, what specifics you are voting for, and post-electoral horse trading, aka Parliamentary debate and process, is as likely to control what you actually get as it would be under PR.

So because Manifesto promises can get broken due to unforeseen circumstances and besides, the general public can't be bothered to read them anyway, we should implement a voting system where it's guaranteed that manifesto pledges will be dumped or significantly altered within a couple of months of the election? Seems legit.

If there is a problem with manifesto pledges, PR won't fix it.

As for my other concerns:

• If there is a problem with parties being in power which doesn't reflect the national vote, PR isn't the only route to fix that.
• If we're worried that the regions are not better represented in Parliament and will put pressure on the Union. PR will make that worse.
• If we're concerned about the sort of people who get selected as candidates, that's not an FPTP / PR issue.
• PR is more confusing for the average voter.
• The turnout of 2011 AV referendum suggests that only 13% of the electorate felt strongly enough to vote for a change in electroal system, 29% felt strongly enough to keep FPTP and the remainder 58 percent couldn't have cared less.
• Even if a decision to implement PR was taken, there would be years of argument over which version should be used.
• PR can lose access to a local constituency MP.

 

[Tony L]

• PR is more confusing for the average voter.

• The turnout of 2011 AV referendum suggests that only 13% of the electorate felt strongly enough to vote for a change in electroal system, 29% felt strongly enough to keep FPTP and the remainder 58 percent couldn't have cared less.

Yes, we should never do anything that requires any thought or intellect on behalf of the end-user. Just dumb everything right down to a tribal blue team vs. red team (and obviously make sure the blue team wins) and everything will be fine!

PS FWIW I’d ignore the AV vote as it was, a) not even PR, and b) the full weight of the Conservative Party, their billionaire donors, the establishment elite and their largely offshore tax exile press barons were all determined to sink it. Any attempt to force democratic reform through in the future will be met with similar as Tory Party grift absolutely relies on winning majority power from a minority vote-share. A representative democracy would spell the end of their centuries old scam overnight. They can not possibly do what they do with a straight deck. Sadly Labour are, for reasons which entirely escapes me, willing accomplices.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Yes, we should never do anything that requires any thought or intellect on behalf of the end-user. Just dumb everything right down to a tribal blue team vs. red team (and obviously make sure the blue team wins) and everything will be fine!

Pse see comments below on PR. Some PR systems turn off voters.

PS FWIW I’d ignore the AV vote as it was, a) not even PR, and b) the full weight of the Conservative Party, their billionaire donors, the establishment elite and their largely offshore tax exile press barons were all determined to sink it.

You can't ignore 58% of the Electorate not voting. That suggests huge apathy towards a change in voting in the general population. Who knows? It may have changed in 11 years, but I doubt it.

For Reference (I have copied the whole section but addded my emphasis):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#Proportionality

Proportionality

"Another institutional factor that may have an important effect is proportionality, i.e., how closely the legislature reflects the views of the populace. Under a pure proportional representation system the composition of the legislature is fully proportional to the votes of the populace and a voter can be sure that of being represented in parliament, even if only from the opposition benches. (However many nations that use a form of proportional representation in elections depart from pure proportionality by stipulating that smaller parties are not supported by a certain threshold percentage of votes cast will be excluded from parliament.) By contrast, a voting system based on single seat constituencies (such as the plurality system used in North America, the UK and India) will tend to result in many non-competitive electoral districts, in which the outcome is seen by voters as a foregone conclusion.

Proportional systems tend to produce multiparty coalition governments. This may reduce salience, if voters perceive that they have little influence over which parties are included in the coalition.[95] For instance, after the 2005 German election, the creation of the executive not only expressed the will of the voters of the majority party but also was the result of political deal-making. Although there is no guarantee, this is lessened as the parties usually state with whom they will favour a coalition after the elections.[citation needed]

Political scientists are divided on whether proportional representation increases voter turnout, though in countries with proportional representation voter turnout is higher.[96][97][98] There are other systems that attempt to preserve both salience and proportionality, for example, the Mixed member proportional representation system in New Zealand (in operation since 1996), Germany, and several other countries. However, these tend to be complex electoral systems, and in some cases complexity appears to suppress voter turnout.[99] The dual system in Germany, though, seems to have had no negative impact on voter turnout."​

So, while there are some studies /analysis that suggest PR does increase voter turnout, it's only about 7.5% increase, but there is debate around correlation vs causality with other possible cultural factors at play. In the right direction for sure but I contest that figure could be achieved with FPTP and that figure of 7.5% increase is optimistic and might not read across to the UK Electorate and not enough of a justification for change, given my other bullets.

Just to repeat, I don't think PR is bad, per se, just that it offers marginal gains over FPTP and the fundamental concerns some have here over democracy don't get fixed by it.

 

[wulbert]

Pse see comments below on PR. Some PR systems turn off voters.



You can't ignore 58% of the Electorate not voting. That suggests huge apathy towards a change in voting in the general population. Who knows? It may have changed in 11 years, but I doubt it.

For Reference (I have copied the whole section but addded my emphasis):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#Proportionality

Proportionality

"Another institutional factor that may have an important effect is proportionality, i.e., how closely the legislature reflects the views of the populace. Under a pure proportional representation system the composition of the legislature is fully proportional to the votes of the populace and a voter can be sure that of being represented in parliament, even if only from the opposition benches. (However many nations that use a form of proportional representation in elections depart from pure proportionality by stipulating that smaller parties are not supported by a certain threshold percentage of votes cast will be excluded from parliament.) By contrast, a voting system based on single seat constituencies (such as the plurality system used in North America, the UK and India) will tend to result in many non-competitive electoral districts, in which the outcome is seen by voters as a foregone conclusion.

Proportional systems tend to produce multiparty coalition governments. This may reduce salience, if voters perceive that they have little influence over which parties are included in the coalition.[95] For instance, after the 2005 German election, the creation of the executive not only expressed the will of the voters of the majority party but also was the result of political deal-making. Although there is no guarantee, this is lessened as the parties usually state with whom they will favour a coalition after the elections.[citation needed]

Political scientists are divided on whether proportional representation increases voter turnout, though in countries with proportional representation voter turnout is higher.[96][97][98] There are other systems that attempt to preserve both salience and proportionality, for example, the Mixed member proportional representation system in New Zealand (in operation since 1996), Germany, and several other countries. However, these tend to be complex electoral systems, and in some cases complexity appears to suppress voter turnout.[99] The dual system in Germany, though, seems to have had no negative impact on voter turnout."​

So, while there are some studies /analysis that suggest PR does increase voter turnout, it's only about 7.5% increase, but there is debate around correlation vs causality with other possible cultural factors at play. In the right direction for sure but I contest that figure could be achieved with FPTP and that figure of 7.5% increase is optimistic and might not read across to the UK Electorate and not enough of a justification for change, given my other bullets.

Just to repeat, I don't think PR is bad, per se, just that it offers marginal gains over FPTP and the fundamental concerns some have here over democracy don't get fixed by it.

So....what would be your preference then? What do you want to get from democracy? (Clearly not a system which is proportional or representative)

 

[wulbert]

Electoral Reform Society:

"Of the 43 countries most often considered to be within Europe, 40 use some form of proportional representation to elect their MPs.

The UK stands almost alone in Europe in using a ‘one-person-takes-all’ disproportionate voting system. If we exclude the authoritarian state of Belarus – “Europe’s only remaining outpost of tyranny” – France is the only other European country to use a ‘one-person-takes-all’ system (the Two-Round System)."

Is it likely that we in the UK have the best democratic system when 90% of our neighbours use a different system?

I remember, before March 2020, radio and TV pundits telling us that Britons could never put up with lockdowns and mask wearing. We seem to be unable to see ourselves as just A.N. Other country.

 

[Seeker_UK]

So....what would be your preference then? What do you want to get from democracy? (Clearly not a system which is proportional or representative)

FPTP can offer proper representation if applied properly - I have suggested a raft of things to improve FPTP.

Is it likely that we in the UK have the best democratic system when 90% of our neighbours use a different system?

Not better, different.

 

[laughingboy]

FPTP can offer proper representation if applied properly - I have suggested a raft of things to improve FPTP. [PR is n]ot better, different.

My main argument for PR is that it comes closer to the democratic ideal of making all votes count. It's a simple, but unimpeachable argument in its favour. If the country were a room full of people, PR is a show of hands.

I would love to vote for the party that most represents my views but under FPTP that option is perverted - I end up voting tactically. As a 'progressive' in a safe Tory seat, I vote in the forlorn hope of displacing the incumbent. I usually vote for the party that has the second best chance of winning, based on last election's turnout/recent polls, as that is all I have to go on.

In safe seats, and there are too many of them, FPTP is a laughably bad system - people end up voting ABC ('anything but Conservative' or 'anything but Corbyn') without having read the manifestos. And then politicians elected in this manner talk about their 'mandate', as if the vote were a clear expression of what voters actually want.

Like Tony L, I feel generally disenfranchised by FPTP: I know that my vote is not going to lead to anyone representing me in parliament. In my circumstances, my vote doesn't count.

As an aside, my sense of disenfranchisement is compounded by the additional misfortune of living in the constituency of the speaker in 2010, 2015, and 2017. The convention is that the major parties don't stand against him/her. Another disenfranchisement. You are allowed a vote on the understanding that it is a formality, and that your representative in parliament won't be able to speak on your behalf, sit on select committees, or vote on legislation. It's an absurd cherry on an absurd cake.

 

[ks.234]

I think this is a worthwhile parallel to "how to construct government". You missed housing - the bedrock of good health is a reliable roof over your head.

And a job

 

[wulbert]

Pse see comments below on PR. Some PR systems turn off voters.



You can't ignore 58% of the Electorate not voting. That suggests huge apathy towards a change in voting in the general population. Who knows? It may have changed in 11 years, but I doubt it.

For Reference (I have copied the whole section but addded my emphasis):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#Proportionality

Proportionality

"Another institutional factor that may have an important effect is proportionality, i.e., how closely the legislature reflects the views of the populace. Under a pure proportional representation system the composition of the legislature is fully proportional to the votes of the populace and a voter can be sure that of being represented in parliament, even if only from the opposition benches. (However many nations that use a form of proportional representation in elections depart from pure proportionality by stipulating that smaller parties are not supported by a certain threshold percentage of votes cast will be excluded from parliament.) By contrast, a voting system based on single seat constituencies (such as the plurality system used in North America, the UK and India) will tend to result in many non-competitive electoral districts, in which the outcome is seen by voters as a foregone conclusion.

Proportional systems tend to produce multiparty coalition governments. This may reduce salience, if voters perceive that they have little influence over which parties are included in the coalition.[95] For instance, after the 2005 German election, the creation of the executive not only expressed the will of the voters of the majority party but also was the result of political deal-making. Although there is no guarantee, this is lessened as the parties usually state with whom they will favour a coalition after the elections.[citation needed]

Political scientists are divided on whether proportional representation increases voter turnout, though in countries with proportional representation voter turnout is higher.[96][97][98] There are other systems that attempt to preserve both salience and proportionality, for example, the Mixed member proportional representation system in New Zealand (in operation since 1996), Germany, and several other countries. However, these tend to be complex electoral systems, and in some cases complexity appears to suppress voter turnout.[99] The dual system in Germany, though, seems to have had no negative impact on voter turnout."​

So, while there are some studies /analysis that suggest PR does increase voter turnout, it's only about 7.5% increase, but there is debate around correlation vs causality with other possible cultural factors at play. In the right direction for sure but I contest that figure could be achieved with FPTP and that figure of 7.5% increase is optimistic and might not read across to the UK Electorate and not enough of a justification for change, given my other bullets.

Just to repeat, I don't think PR is bad, per se, just that it offers marginal gains over FPTP and the fundamental concerns some have here over democracy don't get fixed by it.

You are right that nothing is perfect, but that's hardly a reason not to aspire to a better way of doing things. In Scotland, PR has allowed the Scottish Greens to influence policy and latterly, to enter power sharing. One result is that my son (like all 16-22yr olds) now enjoys free bus travel to his work, a long-standing Green policy.
Whatever your views of the Greens, it makes sense that government reflects as wide a range of voter aspiration as possible (rather than say, a minority, public schoolboy aspiration).

 

[ks.234]

Yes, we should never do anything that requires any thought or intellect on behalf of the end-user. Just dumb everything right down to a tribal blue team vs. red team (and obviously make sure the blue team wins) and everything will be fine!

PS FWIW I’d ignore the AV vote as it was, a) not even PR, and b) the full weight of the Conservative Party, their billionaire donors, the establishment elite and their largely offshore tax exile press barons were all determined to sink it. Any attempt to force democratic reform through in the future will be met with similar as Tory Party grift absolutely relies on winning majority power from a minority vote-share. A representative democracy would spell the end of their centuries old scam overnight. They can not possibly do what they do with a straight deck. Sadly Labour are, for reasons which entirely escapes me, willing accomplices.

The AV vote shows how the Lib Dems are not fit for purpose, even when it comes their own central defining purpose.

 

[ks.234]

In theory of course all parties and all prospective MPs will sign up to these goals, but in reality some will pretend that they can be delivered on the cheap, or will say, in effect, 'yes, all these are good things, but we just can't afford them'.

The problem with democracy boils down to your last few words and the fact that the essentials of a functioning democracy are denied by this 50 year old lie.

As Keynes said, “Anything government can do, government can afford”

 

[wulbert]

FPTP can offer proper representation if applied properly - I have suggested a raft of things to improve FPTP.

Apologies. I missed those. Coming to this thread a bit late. Should have read the whole thing before jumping in.

 

[Tony L]

The AV vote shows how the Lib Dems are not fit for purpose, even when it comes their own central defining purpose.

Agreed. As I’ve said many times they should have refused any coalition and just done either a confidence & supply deal, or nothing and voted on a ‘per issue’ basis on conscience. At the time Labour clearly weren’t a credible entity, plus the numbers didn’t work anyway, and Tories are never trustworthy.

I view the AV sell-out as by far their worst legacy. It is obvious no junior party in a coalition will ever get to implement their whole manifesto (it astonishes me how many are under the delusion they would), but given democratic reform had always been the core LD policy they should just have walked away. By saying that they did help millions of us on low incomes by forcing the Tories to do their tax cutting from the bottom, not their usual top. Something Labour hadn’t done in three terms. That, and some animal rights legislation is pretty much their entire political legacy, which is clearly not great, but it’s certainly better than say Iraq, Afghanistan, ramped-up authoritarianism, eroding trade unions, and massive PFI debt!

PS To add nuance to some of my posts over the past couple of days I do support anything that increases democratic representation and accountability. Literally anything. I do believe FPTP is the major and insurmountable blockage here, the cause of the system crash, but I certainly welcome all forward movement no mater where or what, and I’m not sure that was clear from my wording.

 

[ks.234]

Agreed. As I’ve said many times they should have refused any coalition and just done either a confidence & supply deal, or nothing and voted on a ‘per issue’ basis on conscience. At the time Labour clearly weren’t a credible entity, plus the numbers didn’t work anyway, and Tories are never trustworthy.

I view the AV sell-out as by far their worst legacy. It is obvious no junior party in a coalition will ever get to implement their whole manifesto (it astonishes me how many are under the delusion they would), but given democratic reform had always been the core LD policy they should just have walked away. By saying that they did help millions of us on low incomes by forcing the Tories to do their tax cutting from the bottom, not their usual top. Something Labour hadn’t done in three terms. That, and some animal rights legislation is pretty much their entire political legacy, which is clearly not great, but it’s certainly better than say Iraq, Afghanistan, ramped-up authoritarianism, eroding trade unions, and massive PFI debt!

PS To add nuance to some of my posts over the past couple of days I do support anything that increases democratic representation and accountability. Literally anything. I do believe FPTP is the major and insurmountable blockage here, the cause of the system crash, but I certainly welcome all forward movement no mater where or what, and I’m not sure that was clear from my wording.

PR will help, but it won’t get over the fundamental problem of government spending constrained by the household economic model. The “you can’t afford it” argument is used to deny basic human rights, and if we have a human rights deficit, we have a democratic deficit.

Unfortunately all parties, including my own, still sign up to household economic model, so even if PR gave them a voice, politics might improve, but the fundamental problem would remain

 

[Tony L]

PR will help, but it won’t get over the fundamental problem of government spending constrained by the household economic model. The “you can’t afford it” argument is used to deny basic human rights, and if we have a human rights deficit, we have a democratic deficit.

Unfortunately all parties, including my own, still sign up to household economic model, so even if PR gave them a voice, politics might improve, but the fundamental problem would remain

I view FPTP as a tool designed to keep any such radical thinking out of mainstream political discourse. As long as it is in place any new economic or social thinking will be stifled, very deliberately. I absolutely guarantee there will be no MMT or equivalent until we reach a point of democracy where people who are convinced by the argument are allowed to vote for it.

There is no way in hell it will ever appear in a Labour or Tory manifesto. Absolutely zero chance. The vested interests in both parties are just too great and far too rooted in the past to be able to cope with any new thinking, however rational. These arguments will inevitably come from outside the establishment. They will be viewed as a threat to the two-headed beast. As such we need core political infrastructure design in place first that can allow such new thinking to thrive, not be ejected without representation as is the current way. MMT and its ilk could only exist with wide consensus in a democracy. At present we do not have one. MMT needs PR to even get the argument heard. Again, it will never convince Labour. Not a chance. You need another doorway in.

 

[Seeker_UK]

You are right that nothing is perfect, but that's hardly a reason not to aspire to a better way of doing things. In Scotland, PR has allowed the Scottish Greens to influence policy and latterly, to enter power sharing. One result is that my son (like all 16-22yr olds) now enjoys free bus travel to his work, a long-standing Green policy.
Whatever your views of the Greens, it makes sense that government reflects as wide a range of voter aspiration as possible (rather than say, a minority, public schoolboy aspiration).

I'm sure there are better ways. There's enough suggestions on this thread already. I think that there are many we could implement before PR, which I would consider a next step ponce all the possible changes have been made and tested.

TL/DR - I think that PR will cause a lot of upheaval and chaos to get in and implement and is not counterbalanced by the benefit it offers (at this stage).

 

[ks.234]

I view FPTP as a tool designed to keep any such radical thinking out of mainstream political discourse. As long as it is in place any new economic or social thinking will be stifled, very deliberately. I absolutely guarantee there will be no MMT or equivalent until we reach a point of democracy where people who are convinced by the argument are allowed to vote for it.

There is no way in hell it will ever appear in a Labour or Tory manifesto. Absolutely zero chance. The vested interests in both parties are just too great and far too rooted in the past to be able to cope with any new thinking, however rational. These arguments will inevitably come from outside the establishment. They will be viewed as a threat to the two-headed beast. As such we need core political infrastructure design in place first that can allow such new thinking to thrive, not be ejected without representation as is the current way. MMT and its ilk could only exist with wide consensus in a democracy. At present we do not have one. MMT needs PR to even get the argument heard. Again, it will never convince Labour. Not a chance. You need another doorway in.

I’m not talking about MMT, there are too many problems with it. What I am talking about is the big lie that underpins and maintains our present politics. Forget about MMT, we need to set fire to the foundations of the big lie and undermine the central straw pillar which holds up our present political orthodoxy.

This is of course a chicken and egg argument, do we need to PR to change politics or do we need to change politics to get PR.

But I am a devoted eggist in that I believe the fragile shell is the lie that needs to be smashed before we can get to the golden yoke of truth!

 

[Tony L]

This is of course a chicken and egg argument, do we need to PR to change politics or do we need to change politics to get PR. But I am a devoted eggist in that I believe the fragile shell is the lie that needs to be smashed before we can get to the golden yoke of truth!

I’m of the view that we should collectively view the current system (and the parties that exist within it/defend it) as being structurally broken. I see the system as already having crashed. We should therefore attack from any angle where there is any potential for either democratic change or enhanced public scrutiny. That’s obviously easier to say than to do, but I’d certainly argue it was chicken and egg thing, not a choice between.

 

[ks.234]