Government & Post Election Discussion

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Angua

No it does not have the support of the majority of the population. 43.3% of those who voted did so for either the Tories or the DUP. 42.4% Tory, 0.9% DUP.

I didn't say it did. Re-read my post.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I didn't say it did. Re-read my post.

You are correct. I miss read you.

However, assuming the UK would suddenly become as volatile as Italy, when politics here are less volatile to start with is stretching things to excuse the continuation of FPTP.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Angua

You are correct. I miss read you.

However, assuming the UK would suddenly become as volatile as Italy, when politics here are less volatile to start with is stretching things to excuse the continuation of FPTP.

I am all for more representative elections, but we need a system that will provide us with strong governments. I have yet to see a completely satisfactory system that I could support.

I do not want to see no clear winners in elections and a constant battle to get anything through the House of Commons. That's what we had with the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition and the present Conservative/DUP coalition.

However, we could have a newly constituted House of Lords elected under PR. As a revising chamber that has the credibility of public consent, the changes it proposes to legislation would be a lot more authoritative than we get from the current unelected, mainly clapped out bunch we have in there now.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I am all for more representative elections, but we need a system that will provide us with strong governments. I have yet to see a completely satisfactory system that I could support.

I do not want to see no clear winners in elections and a constant battle to get anything through the House of Commons. That's what we had with the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition and the present Conservative/DUP coalition.

However, we could have a newly constituted House of Lords elected under PR. As a revising chamber that has the credibility of public consent, the changes it proposes to legislation would be a lot more authoritative than we get from the current unelected, mainly clapped out bunch we have in there now.

Why do we need clear winners elected by a minority? What makes that either strong or stable? All it produces is parties ignoring the majority simply because they have hit that magic number of seats in parliament. They don't have to listen to or appeal to the majority, just sway the voters in marginal constituencies. Most seats just do not matter.

Consensus governments have to plan long term, minority parties can get votes/MPs which make the ruling coalition aware of problems, rather than riding roughshod over the electorate because they can easily ignore dissent.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Angua

Why do we need clear winners elected by a minority? What makes that either strong or stable? All it produces is parties ignoring the majority simply because they have hit that magic number of seats in parliament. They don't have to listen to or appeal to the majority, just sway the voters in marginal constituencies. Most seats just do not matter.

Consensus governments have to plan long term, minority parties can get votes/MPs which make the ruling coalition aware of problems, rather than riding roughshod over the electorate because they can easily ignore dissent.

[OLD BOY]

[Edit]

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Angua

Why do we need clear winners elected by a minority? What makes that either strong or stable? All it produces is parties ignoring the majority simply because they have hit that magic number of seats in parliament. They don't have to listen to or appeal to the majority, just sway the voters in marginal constituencies. Most seats just do not matter.

Consensus governments have to plan long term, minority parties can get votes/MPs which make the ruling coalition aware of problems, rather than riding roughshod over the electorate because they can easily ignore dissent.

Don't forget that most Governments also attempt to redefine the constituency boundaries to make them "fairer" which strangely ends up with the chance of a few more seats for the incumbent administration.

---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:51 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, partly correct. However, you may have a coalition which has the support of the majority of the population, but is as weak as the current government because although the numbers add up, every decision has to be put off, diluted or abandoned to get cross party support.

Look at the series of weak governments Italy has had to put up with over the years. We don't want that here.

You are falling, perhaps deliberately, into the trap of presenting extreme examples of the scenario you wish to attack.

You forget that there is a spectrum of choice between what we have now and the failed Italian administrations I think you're referring to.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are falling, perhaps deliberately, into the trap of presenting extreme examples of the scenario you wish to attack.

You forget that there is a spectrum of choice between what we have now and the failed Italian administrations I think you're referring to.

As the EU Referendum is a true representation of PR in action it seems as though those advocating for it will never be pleased.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by pip08456

As the EU Referendum is a true representation of PR in action it seems as though those advocating for it will never be pleased.

No the referendum was a binary choice. Had it been PR there would have been more options to choose from.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Angua

No the referendum was a binary choice. Had it been PR there would have been more options to choose from.

The point Pip was making was that even when you have a democratic choice ensuring that you can implement what it was the majority voted for, people still think it's unfair for one reason or another, particularly if the result is not to their liking.

Your post demonstrates that.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The point Pip was making was that even when you have a democratic choice ensuring that you can implement what it was the majority voted for, people still think it's unfair for one reason or another, particularly if the result is not to their liking.

Your post demonstrates that.

Still not PR, just a binary choice for which the majority of people who voted chose leave. Large parts of the country voted differently. What May is trying to do is get the majority of people an agreement they can live with. Which includes appeasing remain supporters, who are still a significant part of the population.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by pip08456

As the EU Referendum is a true representation of PR in action it seems as though those advocating for it will never be pleased.

Oh dear.

PR: the clue is in the name:

Proportional representation (PR) characterizes electoral systems by which divisions into an electorate are reflected proportionately into the elected body. If n% of the electorate support a particular political party, then roughly n% of seats will be won by that party. The essence of such systems is that all votes contribute to the result: not just a plurality, or a bare majority, of them.

PR isn't a referendum, come on. This is getting silly.

The referendum is a still directly democratic system to choose between the given choices and must be respected, it is not 'lesser' than PR, but it just as a matter of fact is not PR.

I get the point. They're both ways of more directly representing what people vote for and it's a valid point but no one need to call it PR.

The EU referendum voting areas were based on the geographic basis of the previous PR referendum, not on the PR principles.

Well this is a thoroughly nonsensical diversion.

PR ... the clue is in the name. Proportional Representation. I.E. A vote to elect representatives to a legislature, whose composition by political affiliation broadly reflects the proportion of votes cast.

A referendum is not an election. It does not seek to elect representatives. It is the antithesis of representative democracy, being an exercise in direct democracy - the electorate takes the decision, rather than their representatives in the legislature.