By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
and I do not recognise the forthcoming election results. They are rigged in favour of increasing the majority's share over the minority.
Last election it took roughly 40k people to vote in one conservative MP. Whereas it took almost 200k to vote in a Liberal democrat MP, 550k to vote in a Green MP and UKIP didn't get a single seat with 600k votes.
Based on a 650 seater house, the Conservatives got 42 MPs more than the population wanted. Labour got 2 MPs more than they deserved. Liberal Democrats got 36 less than they should have, Greens got 10 less than they should have and UKIP should have had 12.
This will be repeated time and again because the main benefactors each time don't want a democratic system. They want the system that maximises their position.
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
This Country is not democratic on 10:56 - Dec 7 by GeoffSentence
And dont forget the House Of Lords, a mainly appointed chamber but one which, remarkably includes around 90 hereditary members.
I doubt that our system would meet even the most basic of standards to be considered democratic.
Our head of state is a monarchy. They receive cabinet minutes (no-one else does for 30 years) and the queen meets the PM for an hour every week regardless of the PM's schedule. Knowledge and access is power. I'm pretty sure the Bishops on the privy council haven't been elected too. Live in the City and want to elect who runs your council? Out of luck I'm afraid. That's the City of London Corporation, appointed by a handful of bankers to lobby for offshore wheezes.
Give me the EU institutions over this shower any day. They are either directly-elected (via proportional representation, not our first-past-the-post) or indirectly-elected.
1
This Country is not democratic on 11:44 - Dec 7 with 2414 views
And on top of that the Houses of Parliament have limited influence on the fortunes of our four nations with the natural environment, global corporations and international media concerns creating a political landscape that the best the politicians can hope to do is skitter over like so many marbles on a frozen pond.
Well, until one of them has to make the choice about whether to push the button...
This Country is not democratic on 12:25 - Dec 7 by No9
OK what is you proposal fro dealint with it-? Tories manifesto is clear, they will maintain the 1st past the post.
There is no evidence that these same voting patterns would be replicated under PR. At least with FTP you know who you are voting for (MP) and usually have some control who that candidate is. With PR that all goes out of the window.
The myth of PR is that some how smaller parties would have a proportionate influence on how the country is run. The evidence is that they don't. Unless their votes are decisive the simply get swallowed up by the larger parties. Whenn their votes are crucial they have a hiugely disproportunate influence (DUP ).
The real lack of democracy is the many voters non engagement with the process. They only whine about how bad it all is when they are told to do so.
0
This Country is not democratic on 12:47 - Dec 7 with 2315 views
This Country is not democratic on 12:37 - Dec 7 by HARRY10
There is no evidence that these same voting patterns would be replicated under PR. At least with FTP you know who you are voting for (MP) and usually have some control who that candidate is. With PR that all goes out of the window.
The myth of PR is that some how smaller parties would have a proportionate influence on how the country is run. The evidence is that they don't. Unless their votes are decisive the simply get swallowed up by the larger parties. Whenn their votes are crucial they have a hiugely disproportunate influence (DUP ).
The real lack of democracy is the many voters non engagement with the process. They only whine about how bad it all is when they are told to do so.
Why do you think so many voters are not engaged with the process? I'd say it is because it is fundamentally undemocratic and people feel that they are not heard. Which is very much what it feels like in a FPTP winner takes all system if you dont vote for the winning candidate.
This Country is not democratic on 11:32 - Dec 7 by grow_our_own
Our head of state is a monarchy. They receive cabinet minutes (no-one else does for 30 years) and the queen meets the PM for an hour every week regardless of the PM's schedule. Knowledge and access is power. I'm pretty sure the Bishops on the privy council haven't been elected too. Live in the City and want to elect who runs your council? Out of luck I'm afraid. That's the City of London Corporation, appointed by a handful of bankers to lobby for offshore wheezes.
Give me the EU institutions over this shower any day. They are either directly-elected (via proportional representation, not our first-past-the-post) or indirectly-elected.
That's the irony for all this clamour for democracy despite our own system being massively flawed
It must be remembered our press isn't considered particularly free either, I believe we come out at about 40th in the world in that little League Table
[Post edited 7 Dec 2019 13:02]
Alcohol is the answer but I can't remember the question!
This Country is not democratic on 12:37 - Dec 7 by HARRY10
There is no evidence that these same voting patterns would be replicated under PR. At least with FTP you know who you are voting for (MP) and usually have some control who that candidate is. With PR that all goes out of the window.
The myth of PR is that some how smaller parties would have a proportionate influence on how the country is run. The evidence is that they don't. Unless their votes are decisive the simply get swallowed up by the larger parties. Whenn their votes are crucial they have a hiugely disproportunate influence (DUP ).
The real lack of democracy is the many voters non engagement with the process. They only whine about how bad it all is when they are told to do so.
Well obviously, we can all see that there are no, and never have been, any coalitions in all those European nations that have proportional representation.
And even if there were none of the minority parties would ever have any influence on policy...
This Country is not democratic on 12:47 - Dec 7 by GeoffSentence
Why do you think so many voters are not engaged with the process? I'd say it is because it is fundamentally undemocratic and people feel that they are not heard. Which is very much what it feels like in a FPTP winner takes all system if you dont vote for the winning candidate.
Nop. I have to disagree.
It is that lack of engagement that leads them to ill informed ideas that tell them the above. It is always someone else's fault.
It is the EU, the judiciary who are supposedly the enemies of the people, or the house of Lords.
However I have yet to meet anyone who bleats out this guff who has the slightest idea of what any of those do.
That their views are not heard is a myth. They are heard and dismissed as the idiotic bleats of the ill informed.
-1
This Country is not democratic on 13:13 - Dec 7 with 2277 views
This Country is not democratic on 12:37 - Dec 7 by HARRY10
There is no evidence that these same voting patterns would be replicated under PR. At least with FTP you know who you are voting for (MP) and usually have some control who that candidate is. With PR that all goes out of the window.
The myth of PR is that some how smaller parties would have a proportionate influence on how the country is run. The evidence is that they don't. Unless their votes are decisive the simply get swallowed up by the larger parties. Whenn their votes are crucial they have a hiugely disproportunate influence (DUP ).
The real lack of democracy is the many voters non engagement with the process. They only whine about how bad it all is when they are told to do so.
Actually the Scottish PR system gives local MSPs. Then the total votes are used to ensure a remaining pool of more regional and national MSPs creates the fully proportional representation.
Best of both worlds, surely?
Pronouns: He/Him
1
This Country is not democratic on 13:21 - Dec 7 with 2261 views
Situation is probably worse in Scotland where the SNP are predicted to get 90% of the seats although their share of the Scottish vote will be similar to the Conservative vote south of the border
The system adopted for the European election would be preferable to proportional representation which works on lists.
This Country is not democratic on 13:13 - Dec 7 by Darth_Koont
Actually the Scottish PR system gives local MSPs. Then the total votes are used to ensure a remaining pool of more regional and national MSPs creates the fully proportional representation.
Best of both worlds, surely?
Whilst it would appear more representative it is still bound by voter engagement. Something that is all too dependent on voters simply spewing out what they want to believe.... irrespective of any evidence to the contrary.
While that is from the US that same level of stupidity is played out on a daily basis up and down the UK. Look how the Tories have conducted themselves in this campaign. Blatant lies and misrepresentation, yet where is the condemnation from those who talk of a lack of democracy ?
Where is their any integrity in the complaints when they are quiet on this ?
0
This Country is not democratic on 13:42 - Dec 7 with 2241 views
This Country is not democratic on 13:40 - Dec 7 by HARRY10
Whilst it would appear more representative it is still bound by voter engagement. Something that is all too dependent on voters simply spewing out what they want to believe.... irrespective of any evidence to the contrary.
While that is from the US that same level of stupidity is played out on a daily basis up and down the UK. Look how the Tories have conducted themselves in this campaign. Blatant lies and misrepresentation, yet where is the condemnation from those who talk of a lack of democracy ?
Where is their any integrity in the complaints when they are quiet on this ?
So what's your solution then? There will always be stupid people but that doesn't justify sticking with an unrepresentative and outdated FTPT electoral system.
FPTP is still a democratic system, it's just not the democratic system you (or I) prefer. Both have advantages and disadvantages, you've just listed the disadvantages of the system you don't like.
This Country is not democratic on 10:32 - Dec 7 by bluelagos
The system supports a blue/red carve up of the seats - always has done.
When was the last time a majority government was elected with more than 50% of the vote?
It doesn't, it inflates the results of the most popular parties, which makes it more likely they can form a government. The fact that the most popular parties are always red and blue is because, well, they are the most popular parties. If yellow gets 40% then yellow's seat count will be inflated.
This Country is not democratic on 16:15 - Dec 7 by Trequartista
It doesn't, it inflates the results of the most popular parties, which makes it more likely they can form a government. The fact that the most popular parties are always red and blue is because, well, they are the most popular parties. If yellow gets 40% then yellow's seat count will be inflated.
Not necessarily as it depends on how that vote is distributed. In 2010 the Lib Dems got 23% of the popular vote but only 57 seats, 201 seats fewer than Labour who got a mere 6% more of the vote. The current system favours the big two as they have, over the years, shaped constituencies at times to favour themselves when in power. That means it's pretty well-rigged so that a party like the Lib Dems, whose support is distributed across the country, would struggle to get majority even with 40% of the popular vote since they would still struggle to win enough of those Tory and Labour strongholds, assuming they both pulled in circa 25%.
This Country is not democratic on 16:23 - Dec 7 by Herbivore
Not necessarily as it depends on how that vote is distributed. In 2010 the Lib Dems got 23% of the popular vote but only 57 seats, 201 seats fewer than Labour who got a mere 6% more of the vote. The current system favours the big two as they have, over the years, shaped constituencies at times to favour themselves when in power. That means it's pretty well-rigged so that a party like the Lib Dems, whose support is distributed across the country, would struggle to get majority even with 40% of the popular vote since they would still struggle to win enough of those Tory and Labour strongholds, assuming they both pulled in circa 25%.
I appreciate the regional aspects also effect the results, but as soon as the LibDems go a few points ahead, the swing would make those strongholds crumble and the exagerrated effect works in the opposite direction. If they get 40% average in every seat and Tories and Labour average 25% in every seat i'm pretty sure they'd win a majority.
The LibDems have strongholds too remember - the south-west, london, scotland. It's just they are not very strong when on 15% of the vote.
This Country is not democratic on 16:38 - Dec 7 by Trequartista
I appreciate the regional aspects also effect the results, but as soon as the LibDems go a few points ahead, the swing would make those strongholds crumble and the exagerrated effect works in the opposite direction. If they get 40% average in every seat and Tories and Labour average 25% in every seat i'm pretty sure they'd win a majority.
The LibDems have strongholds too remember - the south-west, london, scotland. It's just they are not very strong when on 15% of the vote.
[Post edited 7 Dec 2019 16:41]
But that's not how it works, is it? No party averages their overall popular vote share across all seats.
This Country is not democratic on 16:43 - Dec 7 by Herbivore
But that's not how it works, is it? No party averages their overall popular vote share across all seats.
I don't mean they get the average vote in each individual seat (or the party with 40% would win 100% seats) i mean they are going to get an average of 40% across all seats.
This Country is not democratic on 12:37 - Dec 7 by HARRY10
There is no evidence that these same voting patterns would be replicated under PR. At least with FTP you know who you are voting for (MP) and usually have some control who that candidate is. With PR that all goes out of the window.
The myth of PR is that some how smaller parties would have a proportionate influence on how the country is run. The evidence is that they don't. Unless their votes are decisive the simply get swallowed up by the larger parties. Whenn their votes are crucial they have a hiugely disproportunate influence (DUP ).
The real lack of democracy is the many voters non engagement with the process. They only whine about how bad it all is when they are told to do so.
Proportional representation has several forms, one of which is open list proportional representation, where you vote for a party and then for the individual candidates on that party's list. Seats are then allocated based on parties' share of the vote and then the number of votes received by each candidate of the parties that won seats. This system is used in several countries.
This mistaken assumption seems to come up almost every time PR is discussed.
2
This Country is not democratic on 16:53 - Dec 7 with 2092 views
This Country is not democratic on 16:49 - Dec 7 by Trequartista
I don't mean they get the average vote in each individual seat (or the party with 40% would win 100% seats) i mean they are going to get an average of 40% across all seats.