|
|
|
Wag
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
Errata - the German system of proportional representation has been known to develop at least one strong government.
http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/facts/bl_electoral_system.htm
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weicons.htm
Don't the BNP get more than 5% of the national vote?
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:45 AM
Posts: 270,
Visits: 1,133
|
|
| Well call me crazy but I just find it ludicrous that a government who won less than 50% of the votes in a general election still normally hold more than 50% of the seats. 3 line whip things and a government with less than 50% of the country backing them can force through legislation. At least with PR my votes count and even if you are teaming up with a minority party you are still increasing the amount of backing your 'coalition' has in that country. I don't think it's rocket science. My vote is not worth anything most of the time. Matt J
If I wanted to listen to an arsehole, I'd fart!
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
MattJ (5/10/2007)
Well call me crazy but I just find it ludicrous that a government whowon less than 50% of the votes in a general election still normally hold more than 50% of the seats.
Why is it that inherently more ludicrous than any other vote where the first past the post wins? Generally when people say 'lets vote on it' they are talking about a 'first past the post' vote.
MattJ (5/10/2007)
3 line whip things and a government with less than 50% of the country backing them can force through legislation.
The scheme you've suggested - additional member system - doesn't require 50% of the country to back a full legislative government. 3-line whips/party government lead to parties you can support/punish, rather than key votes turning on MPs the vast majority of Britain never even had the option of voting for/against.
MattJ (5/10/2007)
At least with PR my votes count and even if you are teaming up with a minority party you are still increasing the amount of backing your 'coalition' has in that country.
You haven't made any case at all for why your vote counts more under a PR system than a FPP system. I don't know much about voting systems, but these are the generally agreed downsides to PR. I've sketched out a couple of - I think - historically accurate examples of how PR can lead to your vote meaning _a lot_ less than under FPP.
After the National Socialists toppled the Weimar republic by heckling/undermining the parliament, the post-war German PR was rewritten to exclude any (PR generated seasts for) parties with less than 5% of the total vote share. Depending on your point of view (and the % vote share for the 'extremist' parties), that's either the best of both worlds or the worst of both worlds (more seats for your third-place party, but none of those people you don't like or even less power for the close second-runner party you voted for and the winning party forced into a coalition with the BNP who get 6% of the vote share ...).
Oh - and one of those two links pointed out that the German voting system has suffered a marked downturn in voter turnout - evidently, they Germans don't all think that their vote counts.
MattJ (5/10/2007)
I don't think it's rocket science. My vote is not worth anything most of the time.
Most things are simple if you don't think about them much - rockets go up, what's more is there to say?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3804841.stm
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/5/14/1
In the full article, they talk more about what 'voting power' means - i.e. the chance that your vote will break a deadlock. Both PR and FPP systems are non-uniform - everyone's vote counts, but not everyone's vote has an equal chance of contributing to a functional government coalition/contributing directly to government policy. FPP is middle-ground biased, PR is biased towards the extreme.
If there are two main parties - slightly left of centre, slightly right of centre {~40 % of the vote each} - and two extremist very right/very left of centre parties {~10 % of the vote each}, then the two extremist parties have enormous and disproportionate power (far more than the second-runner party coming in with 38% of the vote) because they have the deciding 10% needed to form a government.
Possibly more important, parties under FPP have to put forwards manifestoes and then take a beating in the next election if they don't live up to them. In a PR system, coalitions abound - at which point manifestoes are only relevant until election night at which point a new coalition needs to be formed and the two or more manifestoes get merged. Who is to be held accountable for that?
I'm not saying that having a PR system is the harbinger of political doom, despite it's history, but it's naive in the extreme to claim that it's 'obviously' better or certain to make 'votes' count for more. Some votes will count for more, some will count for less. We have voting figures - it's not terribly hard to figure out what that system would do for the British parliament (off the top of my head, bad for labour, not so good for conservatives, good for the liberal democrats, fantastic for UKIP, RESPECT, BNP, Green Party).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Cold Water and Brass Tacks
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:44 PM
Posts: 1,180,
Visits: 1,031
|
|
Marios (5/10/2007)
Possibly more important, parties under FPP have to put forwards manifestoes and then take a beating in the next election if they don't live up to them. Erm you DO live in the UK? *points at Labour Manifestos* Yes thats right certainly stopped their second term....erm.... no wait....
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
Flannel (5/10/2007)
*points at Labour Manifestos*
That's the idea - you can point at Labour's manifestoes. If Labour published a manifesto, got the majority of the vote, but then had to go into a coalition with another party then they'd immediately have to generate a new manifesto (which might then get renegotiated between the two parties during their term in office) which no one had specifically voted for, for which no one party is uniquely responsible.
Flannel (5/10/2007)
Yes thats right certainly stopped their second term....erm.... no wait....
Just because the electorate is _able_ to punish governments if they don't perceive that they are living up to their manifestos doesn't mean that (i) everyone in the electorate agrees with your opinion on whether they are or not or (ii) that they choose to do so.
Marios
|
|
|
|