Do you agree with democracy?
- Thread starter Peart
- Start date
- Jan 14, 2004
- 890
- 6
- 105
Beautiful question...
The word democracy means "rule by the people", which I generally agree with, however the idea of democracy today where a few selected people decide what is in the "best" interest of the people is far from perfect.
But to cut a long pointless thread short I voted yes...
The word democracy means "rule by the people", which I generally agree with, however the idea of democracy today where a few selected people decide what is in the "best" interest of the people is far from perfect.
But to cut a long pointless thread short I voted yes...
What about instances in which a party may win over the most constituencies, yet get fewer votes than an opposing party? Or in the less extreme case, why should a party that gets a tiny percentage of the votes but wins over a single constituency gain a seat in Parliament, while a party that gets more votes but fails to win over any constituencies gains nothing? Then even in one of the few regular events where the people are supposed to get their say, they don't really at all
The more extreme of the two has happened I think twice in this country alone. Does that not show that the entire system is horribly flawed? And this is supposed to be the "tried and true" electoral system.
Democracy is stupid. Why should someone I've never met before from Birmingham be able to have an unwanted impact on my future by voting for a party I don't like? And vice versa?
The more extreme of the two has happened I think twice in this country alone. Does that not show that the entire system is horribly flawed? And this is supposed to be the "tried and true" electoral system.
Democracy is stupid. Why should someone I've never met before from Birmingham be able to have an unwanted impact on my future by voting for a party I don't like? And vice versa?
Last edited:
That's not a feature of democracy. Its a feature of the voting system 'first past the post' which occurs when one parties support is too thinly spread.
Any party which wins a seat has the simple majority of votes in that particular seat. Surely this is fair... for that one constituency.
Hmm. Yes, I suppose. But you have to consider that there's usually only a choice of three parties in most seats. Each share a lot of values at the moment. Therefore whoever gets elected to that seat is also represented by whoever gets voted in. The MP must take all constituents views on board, regardless of alligence.
There's only a certain margin of the popular vote that's different to seats won which is possible at any given election. One possible alternative is treating the UK as a single giant constituency - achieving 100% proportionality. Only problem there being, how do you get your MP
. Labour did promise to look into it, and hold a referendum. However they've not yet managed it. Probably because they're now benefiting from the system heh.The things you've mentioned are not features of democracy in itself. They're features of our chosen voting system. Which by the way, was created by the Conservatives and Liberals in the late 1800s in order to keep the smaller radical parties away from Parliament (its worked too).
But generally democracy requires the consensus of all views. Our interpretation of the system gives voices to all sides large enough to participate. Being a tiny dot in a huge swarm will not be noticed. Thus the person from Birmingham will not have an influence over your future. However several thousand/million people returning MPs which you dislike will.
Remember its not just us. The American electoral college uses the same system, and has the same failures. Hence Bush v Gore 2000.
/Leo
But what would replace FPTP? PR? All PR leads to is monthly re-elections, unstable coalitions and wacko parties coming into power (Nazis, anyone?). No electoral system, even the 'fair' ones, work like they should, yet democracy is dependant on them
furthermore theres the issue that in this 3 party state we're in, it'd be extremely rare for a party to recieve the majority of votes. More people don't want them in power than those who do, but the only remedy for this I can think of is PR, the issues of which have already been outlined
Which is perhaps in itself another downfall of our system, that the individual matters not, and makes no difference to the outcome of elections. But my issue here is with the man's theoretical power, not the power that he may actually hold. In theory, he could be the last push a party needs to win over a constituency, and that constituency could be the last push the party needs to come into power.
That aside, I don't believe that thousands or millions of people have the right to change how I live. If the country democratically passed a bill to have this day turned into "national 'let's burn down leo's house' day" (nothing personal, just an example :P) would you have no legitimate objection to that?
Democracy is a good check on power; but a bad method for making decisions.
I'd rather a party who actually got a lot of votes get seats as opposed to having a party who almost nobody wanted getting one, and thus increasing their say on important issues dispite their lack of popularity
furthermore theres the issue that in this 3 party state we're in, it'd be extremely rare for a party to recieve the majority of votes. More people don't want them in power than those who do, but the only remedy for this I can think of is PR, the issues of which have already been outlined
Which is perhaps in itself another downfall of our system, that the individual matters not, and makes no difference to the outcome of elections. But my issue here is with the man's theoretical power, not the power that he may actually hold. In theory, he could be the last push a party needs to win over a constituency, and that constituency could be the last push the party needs to come into power.
That aside, I don't believe that thousands or millions of people have the right to change how I live. If the country democratically passed a bill to have this day turned into "national 'let's burn down leo's house' day" (nothing personal, just an example :P) would you have no legitimate objection to that?
Democracy is a good check on power; but a bad method for making decisions.
It depends on the PR system used. Theres just far too many to count. Not all of them would require coalition governments, and one is even designed to produce strong governments while wasting 0 votes. Not that it will ever be implemented for out westminister elections.
Theres no two ways about it. For an individual seat, the party MUST win the majority in that constituency in order to gain the seat. On a national level the 'waste margin' problem is an issue. The remedy we've preferred to use so far is to redraw the constituency boundaries every few years.
However remember this. On a local/single constituency level, the party that wins the seat IS the party that the majority of people in that constituency wanted. I wouldn't much like the PR system we use for our MEPs, where we have multiple MEPs per region. I mean, which one do I talk to
.I'm not sure I understand your point here. The 'majority' is simply the party with the largest number of votes. I think you mean the situation where one party has the majority of votes, but when combining the number of people which voted for the alternatives, you have more votes as 'people who didn't vote for the winning party'. Ie Con:40 Lab:30 Lib:20 Other:10 (Winner Cons with 40%, however that means 60% of people didn't want them).
The issue you gave with PR, is just the effects of SOME pr systems. Voting systems for the UK was reviewed by Lord Jenkins(?) sometime in 1998, which resulted in the current voting systems for Europe, Scotland, Wales, and London Mayor. The system he suggested for westminister was AV+ - where you get two votes, one for a normal MP and another for a 'TopUp MP'. Very similar to FPTP, except the TopUp MPs fill the 'waste margin' thus making the system proportional. So in the last election, the Conservatives would have had another 10% of MP share entirely through TopUPs. (They may have even lost the 1992 election under AV+)
The issue your describing there is that of the swing constituency. Where the outcome is unsure so parties up the campaign level there, thus resulting in more attention for them and less for 'known outcomes'. This is why despite Labour almost always winning many seats in the North, you'll never see them campaigning here - being that the seats are all safe.
This indeed flies in the face of democracy, however it must be considered that the effects of which are only temporary at best. Once the election is over and the MP is in place, no one cares for another 4 years
. As voting behaviour becomes more volatile and people in the North East up their IQ (through death of the old miners) a little, you will see more swing constituencies and likely, a change in campaign strategy.I'd have little objection for that since the majority of people would have wanted for it. I'd hope at least they'd have a good reason though. The issue here being why they decided that. Media influence?
Democracy is great for decision making where the decision is simple and not too open to influence from media, peer pressure, and campaigning etc. This is one reason why there isn't a single country on earth which is labelled "Democracy" (although Sweden comes close. Government by referendum lol. Have a cuppa, vote on bill. Go home, watch tv, get back up, vote on another bill... and so on). Most democratic countries are 'representative democracies'. That is to say, the democratic part is the voting of the people which you trust to represent your ideals for the next few years.
So you have the best of democracy, and the best of elites making decisions as a small collective
. Its not a bad system./Leo
I don't see how any system can produce strong governments while not wasting votes. If every vote is counted then you will get fair representation, if you get fair representation you get a coalition and will find it very difficult to get anything doneTo have a majority of votes, more than half the electorate must vote for you. That simply doesn't happen, yet the winning party still gets a majority in parliament. So it's pretty funny that if the winning party were to release a poll saying "do you want us in power", it'd come up rather on the negative side
AV+ again has issues with fair representation. There really is no perfect system.
PR always has issues - The system in place in Germany has the same problems of disproportionate power as fptp does. Parties who don't get enough votes get no representation, which gives parties that DO get enough votes a disproportianate percentage, which, oh look, means that it is possible to gain sovereignty without having a majority.
I know, but I don't like it, it's just more unfair representation of parties. Imagine if a constiuency decided to go Nazi and the BNP wins a seat, that seat would be enough to scare me ****less!
That's just where you and I differ then, I don't think they should ever have the right to invade your human rights. Everyone deserves the right to be left alone.
I can keep listing disadvantages of systems, but really any form of democracy is unfair on those who do not vote for the winning party (who usually make up a higher percentage than those who do want them)
Last edited:
- Mar 27, 2003
- 1,195
- 0
- 213
Personally I agree with Democracy, but I think the bigger question is what type of voting system do you want.
I really don't like PR systems like Alternative Vote and Party list (especially closed party list), but I do admit that there are flaws in FPTP (as you can see from the latest election results).
The one question that you have to ask yourself is if you want Strong, Decisive Government which has the power to do strong reforms, or do you want a representative goverment which has to dilute all of its policies to try and do what they want to do.
I'll tell you exactly why I don't like PR:-
Firstly, Coalitions typically don't last that long - in Italy (I think, I can't quite remember where this statistic was from) a coalition lasted a record of 120 days - that's how unstable they can be.
Another reason why i don't like PR is that it often gives smaller parties power when they shouldn't have it e.g. in N.I. (could've been Scotland) the 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest party formed a coalition and got into power, with the largest party in opposition. How is it fair that the 4th largest party (with a tiny % of vote) gets into power, and yet the one with the largest % of votes has no power at all.
Probably the biggest problem that I have with PR is the fact that it is slightly undemocratic. Who votes for the Coalitions? You vote for parties, and then the parties decide between themselves who has power - how is that democratic if you don't actually vote for the coalition? It also places much more emphasis on the Coalition building than the election.
Another good point is that if parties have to make coalitions they end up having to dilute all of their policies, and hence they don't have strong decisive government. A perfect example of this is the Angela Merkel government (germany) - they ended up having to dilute all of their manifesto to get into power, and hence they couldn't do the reforms (especially the economic ones) that they wanted to do (even though they got over 40% of the vote). Another example is Labour having to give into University Tuition Fees.
I don't see how anyone can like systems with these flaws - personally I want Strong, decisive governement which can be thrown out of office after a maximum of 5 years if they don't do a good job. I much prefer that to having a representative government which falls away after 100 days.
I know there are huge flaws with FPTP (such as the Tories having to get at least 10% more than Labour to get a majority), but personally I think that it is the lesser of two evils.
There are other systems (like Second Ballot that France uses) which are also okay, but I still think that FPTP is the best of the lot.
I think I read someone talk about Lord Jenkins, and his commission, somewhere. I'm sure that the Lord Jenkins commission was set up due to the 1997 Labour manifesto promising a referendum on electoral reform, and Lord Jenkins had to decide which Electoral system to vote on. Instead of picking one, he spent a year or two going around the country talking to people about electoral systems, and in the end he made up his own - AV+. As you probably know Labour got a huge majority in 1997, and they realised that FPTP is heavily biased in their favour (it still is as we can see from the 2005 election results - Cons got 33% and 197 seats, Labout got 35% and 355 seats - how is that fair? The Tories also got more votes in England than Labour, but a hell of a lot less seats) and after the 1997 election their attitude to electoral reform went out of the window, and has only recently come back. I don't quite remember their being a referendum on this issue, even though Labour promised it a long time ago.
Anyway as I've said before I do agree with Democracy, but I don't think that there is a perfect electoral system. What I think is that all PR systems are crap, and that Majoritarian Systems, or Pluralitarian Systems are the way to go, and that FPTP is the best. I'll be happy to debate about politics - it's one of my passions =D.
/Miles
I really don't like PR systems like Alternative Vote and Party list (especially closed party list), but I do admit that there are flaws in FPTP (as you can see from the latest election results).
The one question that you have to ask yourself is if you want Strong, Decisive Government which has the power to do strong reforms, or do you want a representative goverment which has to dilute all of its policies to try and do what they want to do.
I'll tell you exactly why I don't like PR:-
Firstly, Coalitions typically don't last that long - in Italy (I think, I can't quite remember where this statistic was from) a coalition lasted a record of 120 days - that's how unstable they can be.
Another reason why i don't like PR is that it often gives smaller parties power when they shouldn't have it e.g. in N.I. (could've been Scotland) the 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest party formed a coalition and got into power, with the largest party in opposition. How is it fair that the 4th largest party (with a tiny % of vote) gets into power, and yet the one with the largest % of votes has no power at all.
Probably the biggest problem that I have with PR is the fact that it is slightly undemocratic. Who votes for the Coalitions? You vote for parties, and then the parties decide between themselves who has power - how is that democratic if you don't actually vote for the coalition? It also places much more emphasis on the Coalition building than the election.
Another good point is that if parties have to make coalitions they end up having to dilute all of their policies, and hence they don't have strong decisive government. A perfect example of this is the Angela Merkel government (germany) - they ended up having to dilute all of their manifesto to get into power, and hence they couldn't do the reforms (especially the economic ones) that they wanted to do (even though they got over 40% of the vote). Another example is Labour having to give into University Tuition Fees.
I don't see how anyone can like systems with these flaws - personally I want Strong, decisive governement which can be thrown out of office after a maximum of 5 years if they don't do a good job. I much prefer that to having a representative government which falls away after 100 days.
I know there are huge flaws with FPTP (such as the Tories having to get at least 10% more than Labour to get a majority), but personally I think that it is the lesser of two evils.
There are other systems (like Second Ballot that France uses) which are also okay, but I still think that FPTP is the best of the lot.
I think I read someone talk about Lord Jenkins, and his commission, somewhere. I'm sure that the Lord Jenkins commission was set up due to the 1997 Labour manifesto promising a referendum on electoral reform, and Lord Jenkins had to decide which Electoral system to vote on. Instead of picking one, he spent a year or two going around the country talking to people about electoral systems, and in the end he made up his own - AV+. As you probably know Labour got a huge majority in 1997, and they realised that FPTP is heavily biased in their favour (it still is as we can see from the 2005 election results - Cons got 33% and 197 seats, Labout got 35% and 355 seats - how is that fair? The Tories also got more votes in England than Labour, but a hell of a lot less seats) and after the 1997 election their attitude to electoral reform went out of the window, and has only recently come back. I don't quite remember their being a referendum on this issue, even though Labour promised it a long time ago.
Anyway as I've said before I do agree with Democracy, but I don't think that there is a perfect electoral system. What I think is that all PR systems are crap, and that Majoritarian Systems, or Pluralitarian Systems are the way to go, and that FPTP is the best. I'll be happy to debate about politics - it's one of my passions =D.
/Miles
I believe in a small, unintrusive government. They should levee minimul taxes in order to provide things like roads, law and defense, and their sole perpose should be to defend the rights of the people. But that is it.
- Jul 4, 2003
- 1,032
- 10
- 175
Lets face it, what we have now is good, not great, but good. A government, or ruling body that is entirely representative, just, fair, etc etc is just a unreachable dream. Nothing in the world can ever really reach a state of perfection like that./
However, compare what we have to the likes of what countries like Iraq, or China etc have. You elect some guy who seems like the best candidate at the time, 2 years later you find out he's a psychopath bent on war, and your countries infrastructure begins to crumble. At this point comes the realisation that your country is basically ****ed till this guy dies, or is killed. Throw into the mix that these type of leaders normally have a fanatical army, and things really start to get great.
At the very least, we can be happy we have the ability to bring in change, Labour are pretty much ****ed at the moment, but I dont think they are on the way out yet, the great thing is, because of this the party will more than likely change it stance on some things to try and win back voters. So the actual influence of people is more than you think.
However, compare what we have to the likes of what countries like Iraq, or China etc have. You elect some guy who seems like the best candidate at the time, 2 years later you find out he's a psychopath bent on war, and your countries infrastructure begins to crumble. At this point comes the realisation that your country is basically ****ed till this guy dies, or is killed. Throw into the mix that these type of leaders normally have a fanatical army, and things really start to get great.
At the very least, we can be happy we have the ability to bring in change, Labour are pretty much ****ed at the moment, but I dont think they are on the way out yet, the great thing is, because of this the party will more than likely change it stance on some things to try and win back voters. So the actual influence of people is more than you think.
- Mar 27, 2003
- 1,195
- 0
- 213
I think I have to agree with you Atom, but I don't think that Labour is outright going to win the next general election - I think that it's going to be a Hung Parliament.
Even though Cameron is trying to do pretty much what Blair did in 1994 (make the party more centeralist, and more appealing) I don't think that they're going to be able to get the 10% lead over Labour that they need to get into power.
Personally I'd much rather have the Conservatives in power than Labour, but a lot of what happens is going to depend on the Labour leadership - if (or should I say when?) Brown takes over, if people really don't like him, they might decide that they've had enough of Labour and vote for the Tories. Then again they might regain the popularity that they've lost in the past year or so due to Blair, and win yet again.
The one thing that you do notice is that the parties are increasingly similar, and you're voting more for the Prime Minister, than on specific issues. I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I think that Cameron would do a much better job than Brown, and he'd probably be better than Blair has been.
I think that a lot also depends on when the election is done, if it is done right after the Labour Leadership Contest (as it may well be), then Labour might sneak a win in (or might even lose - it depends if the new Labour leader is proper PM material), or failing that they might hold on for another couple of years and win/lose depending on what happens between now and then.
I think that if we get a Hung Parliament we will probably end up with a Lib Lab Coalition which might even turn into a permanent one if the Lib Dems get their way on electoral reform. I really hope that that doesn't happen as it will most likely mean that we will have a permanant Lib Lab Coalition (as the Tories are unlikely to get over 50% of the vote, and it's unlikely that the Tories and the Lib Dems will form a Coalition). That's possibly the worst thing that could happen to the country - we'd be stuck with PR due to the Lib Dems not wanting to get rid of a system where they're always in power, and the same goes for Labour.
Anyway, I think that if an election was held right now, and if I could vote, I'd probably vote for Cameron. I wonder how many people agree with me?
/Miles
Even though Cameron is trying to do pretty much what Blair did in 1994 (make the party more centeralist, and more appealing) I don't think that they're going to be able to get the 10% lead over Labour that they need to get into power.
Personally I'd much rather have the Conservatives in power than Labour, but a lot of what happens is going to depend on the Labour leadership - if (or should I say when?) Brown takes over, if people really don't like him, they might decide that they've had enough of Labour and vote for the Tories. Then again they might regain the popularity that they've lost in the past year or so due to Blair, and win yet again.
The one thing that you do notice is that the parties are increasingly similar, and you're voting more for the Prime Minister, than on specific issues. I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I think that Cameron would do a much better job than Brown, and he'd probably be better than Blair has been.
I think that a lot also depends on when the election is done, if it is done right after the Labour Leadership Contest (as it may well be), then Labour might sneak a win in (or might even lose - it depends if the new Labour leader is proper PM material), or failing that they might hold on for another couple of years and win/lose depending on what happens between now and then.
I think that if we get a Hung Parliament we will probably end up with a Lib Lab Coalition which might even turn into a permanent one if the Lib Dems get their way on electoral reform. I really hope that that doesn't happen as it will most likely mean that we will have a permanant Lib Lab Coalition (as the Tories are unlikely to get over 50% of the vote, and it's unlikely that the Tories and the Lib Dems will form a Coalition). That's possibly the worst thing that could happen to the country - we'd be stuck with PR due to the Lib Dems not wanting to get rid of a system where they're always in power, and the same goes for Labour.
Anyway, I think that if an election was held right now, and if I could vote, I'd probably vote for Cameron. I wonder how many people agree with me?
/Miles
- Mar 27, 2003
- 1,195
- 0
- 213
Under FPTP you've got to get a majority of Seats - if you don't then you get something called a "Hung Parliament". This has only happened once out of the last 17 elections (or something like that), and hence is very rare. Party's can either form coalitions together, or if they are unable to form a coalition the Queen can allow someone to form a "minority government". Obviously these minority governments aren't good, and aren't strong and decisive, and hence they usually call for another general election as soon as possible.
Anyway that's how you can get coalitons under FPTP, and frankly if we get a Lib Lab one, we might find ourselves having the next election using a PR system.
/Miles
Anyway that's how you can get coalitons under FPTP, and frankly if we get a Lib Lab one, we might find ourselves having the next election using a PR system.
/Miles