General Election 2015

[Bearsy]

If you guys can reach a consensus, I will vote for whoever you say is best

[pap]

I have a mate who has decided to stand for the green party in Hartlepool , After a bit of ribbing I have came to admire him for standing up for something he believes in and wanting to change the area he lives for the better ! If more people had the guts to do it this country could be a lot better rather that the same old guys peddling the same old policies

It's a nice idea, but I reckon all your friend will achieve is giving people the opportunity to express a preference for a Green politician where perhaps once they did not. He may not even get his deposit back. It's one of the reasons I found all those people screaming at Russell Brand because he directed people not to vote so laughable.

 

Crap choices spread out over a crap system. Most people assume that voting is democratic and fair. It isn't. It leaves millions disenfranchised, including the people that waste their vote on your Green chum.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I have a mate who has decided to stand for the green party in Hartlepool , After a bit of ribbing I have came to admire him for standing up for something he believes in and wanting to change the area he lives for the better ! If more people had the guts to do it this country could be a lot better rather that the same old guys peddling the same old policies

 

These were the people that voted for a mascot dressed as a monkey so he's got half a chance. Mind you, after watching Bennett and looking at their policies I'd rather have H'Angus in charge than the greens and I'm sure the taxpayers of Brighton will agree.

[Wes Tender]

Most people assume that voting is democratic and fair. It isn't. It leaves millions disenfranchised, including the people that waste their vote on your Green chum.

 

People are only disenfranchised if they are not represented by a candidate whose policies they follow. Invariably the ballot paper is crammed with candidates representing the whole political spectrum including the raving looney fringe. If some wish to waste their vote on a candidate with a minimal chance of being elected, they aren't disenfranchised, they are merely wasting their vote. Our Parliamentary Election system might not be perfect, but it certainly isn't undemocratic or unfair, apart from the Scots and Welsh having their own devolved Parliaments and then being allowed to vote on English matters, that is.

[aintforever]

Our Parliamentary Election system might not be perfect, but it certainly isn't undemocratic or unfair

 

I disagree. Proportional representation is obviously the fairest method, it just doesn't suit the whole red v blue agenda.

 

I would have voted green in all the past elections if my vote would have actually counted for anything, instead I've had to vote Lib Dem to try and stop the Tory candidate. I expect the same happens up and down the country, how is that a good democratic process?

[Batman]

I disagree. Proportional representation is obviously the fairest method, it just doesn't suit the whole red v blue agenda.

 

I would have voted green in all the past elections if my vote would have actually counted for anything, instead I've had to vote Lib Dem to try and stop the Tory candidate. I expect the same happens up and down the country, how is that a good democratic process?

then you are an idiot for 'tactically' voting

[Smirking_Saint]

I disagree. Proportional representation is obviously the fairest method, it just doesn't suit the whole red v blue agenda.

 

I would have voted green in all the past elections if my vote would have actually counted for anything, instead I've had to vote Lib Dem to try and stop the Tory candidate. I expect the same happens up and down the country, how is that a good democratic process?

 

So let me get this straight, because you have to tactically vote in order to help stop a tory win then the whole system is undemocratic ?

[pap]

I disagree. Proportional representation is obviously the fairest method, it just doesn't suit the whole red v blue agenda.

 

I would have voted green in all the past elections if my vote would have actually counted for anything, instead I've had to vote Lib Dem to try and stop the Tory candidate. I expect the same happens up and down the country, how is that a good democratic process?

 

...which is to usually be uncontested in Parliament so that they can prosecute their own brand of ideological vandalism on the state. This is why they fought so hard against AV, and why they'll fight any move to make democracy fairer. The unfairness suits the self-interested fúckers just fine.

[aintforever]

then you are an idiot for 'tactically' voting

 

Not really, I would prefer the Lib Dems to the Tories and that's who won in my area (Eastleigh). Where I live if you're going to vote Green or Labour it's not worth the walk down to the polling station.

 

I expect there are many Tories up north who feel the same.

[Batman]

So let me get this straight, because you have to tactically vote in order to help stop a tory win then the whole system is undemocratic ?

 

the country voted for the option of a different system. The computer said NO (didnt it?)

[aintforever]

So let me get this straight, because you have to tactically vote in order to help stop a tory win then the whole system is undemocratic ?

 

Exactly.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

the country voted for the option of a different system. The computer said NO (didnt it?)

 

Well, we were given the choice between a system nobody actually wanted and the current system. Not an actual choice of which system people would actually want.

[Smirking_Saint]

Exactly.

 

So, the country voted in the majority for a candidate you disagree with and so the system is undemocratic then ?

[Batman]

Well, we were given the choice between a system nobody actually wanted and the current system. Not an actual choice of which system people would actually want.

 

the country voted. vote for any form of change was rejected

[pap]

Well, we were given the choice between a system nobody actually wanted and the current system. Not an actual choice of which system people would actually want.

 

It was no-one's first choice, a sop bunged to the Liberals by the Tories. Most that voted yes would have preferred PR.

 

Some who voted no did so because they didn't think AV went far enough.

 

Of course, the real fraud on the British public was to say afterwards "no one is really that arsed about electoral reform. Let's leave it another 40 years".

 

And of course, there were the disgusting campaign posters.....

[Batman]

It was no-one's first choice, a sop bunged to the Liberals by the Tories. Most that voted yes would have preferred PR.

 

Some who voted no did so because they didn't think AV went far enough.

 

Of course, the real fraud on the British public was to say afterwards "no one is really that arsed about electoral reform. Let's leave it another 40 years".

 

And of course, there were the disgusting campaign posters.....

 

it was 'no ones first choice'

 

says who...what people do you speak for

 

the 'people' were given a choice...change...and said no

[aintforever]

So, the country voted in the majority for a candidate you disagree with and so the system is undemocratic then ?

 

No, it's undemocratic because the current system means if you live in certain areas your vote is pointless if you agree with one of the parties that don't have a chance.

 

Under PR if 10% of the people agree with Green policies you would get 10% representation in parliament - how is that not more democratic?

[pap]

it was 'no ones first choice'

 

says who...what people do you speak for

 

the 'people' were given a choice...change...and said no

 

It wasn't the Lib Dem's first choice. They wanted PR. Wasn't the first choice of the Electoral Reform Society. They wanted PR too. Wasn't the first choice of Labour or Tories. In the main, they wanted to keep FPTP.

 

Have you ever considered The Muppet Show?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

the country voted. vote for any form of change was rejected

 

No, the country voted no to AV. Which as Pap and I have said, is a system nobody wanted.

 

The country was not given a vote for "Do you want change?" or "What system would you like?".

[Batman]

No, the country voted no to AV. Which as Pap and I have said, is a system nobody wanted.

 

The country was not given a vote for "Do you want change?" or "What system would you like?".

 

even so, the country rejected the change on the table.

obviously no one wanted it

 

how do you know if anyone would have wanted anything else?

[Batman]

It wasn't the Lib Dem's first choice. They wanted PR. Wasn't the first choice of the Electoral Reform Society. They wanted PR too. Wasn't the first choice of Labour or Tories. In the main, they wanted to keep FPTP.

 

Have you ever considered The Muppet Show?

 

cheers pap.

the country voted to keep the current system when an alternative to this 'undemocratic' way was on the table. and said no.

happy days

 

I have not heard much on 'electoral reform' in the start of the run up to the election.

Guess, no one really cares too much

[KelvinsRightGlove]

So, the country voted in the majority for a candidate you disagree with and so the system is undemocratic then ?

 

I don't have exact figures to hand, but in a lot if not most constituencies a candidate does not get the majority of votes, they get the most.

 

More people voted against the Tories (and Lib Dems combined) than voted for them. So it isn't the majority that gets what they want.

[Patrick Bateman]

I disagree. Proportional representation is obviously the fairest method, it just doesn't suit the whole red v blue agenda.

 

I would have voted green in all the past elections if my vote would have actually counted for anything, instead I've had to vote Lib Dem to try and stop the Tory candidate. I expect the same happens up and down the country, how is that a good democratic process?

 

Typical, chip on shoulder, anti-Conservative, narrow minded, rubbish.

 

Think of this way, what if there were a larger group of people than you think who wanted to vote for the Green candidate? What is that candidate made themselves better known with their campaign? What if you voted for the person you wanted, as you know, you're supposed to do and then what if more people did that? You never know, that candidate may get in!? That's the beauty of politics, sometimes a candidate with a decent campaign will surprise a few people, but they've got to have the backing of their supporters.

 

You support that candidate, vote for them.

[Batman]

after this mish-mash of a govt. I sincerely hope we do not have another coalition of any sort again. Let alone a Govt. made up of many parties.

[pap]

cheers pap.

the country voted to keep the current system when an alternative to this 'undemocratic' way was on the table. and said no.

happy days

 

I have not heard much on 'electoral reform' in the start of the run up to the election.

Guess, no one really cares too much

 

This is like watching a Shetland Pony attempt Becher's Brook.

 

Admirable courage. Questionable judgement.

[Batman]

This is like watching a Shetland Pony attempt Becher's Brook.

 

Admirable courage. Questionable judgement.

 

viewing your views/posts on these subjects is like viewing your own vasectomy taking place

[pap]

viewing your views/posts on these subjects is like viewing your own vasectomy taking place

 

I didn't realise unplanned pregnancies were such a problem in the Shetland Pony community.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Voting should be PR as it's the most democratic way of doing it. However, I think it would also become a bad thing for the country and how it is run, and especially with how laws are made.

[Batman]

I didn't realise unplanned pregnancies were such a problem in the Shetland Pony community.

 

[pap]

Voting should be PR as it's the most democratic way of doing it. However, I think it would also become a bad thing for the country and how it is run, and especially with how laws are made.

 

Germany has done alright with PR. Not only is it the strongest economy in Europe, it also has some of the most stringent protection for its citizens, especially concerning data protection.

 

The choice is really between one party running everything and some kind of consensus. Even with this coalition, we've had one party basically running everything, largely on account of the Lib Dems low yield of seats in the Commons. They'd have something like 100 more under PR, and might have been something slightly more than whipping boys and/or political shields if that had been the case.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Germany has done alright with PR. Not only is it the strongest economy in Europe, it also has some of the most stringent protection for its citizens, especially concerning data protection.

 

The choice is really between one party running everything and some kind of consensus. Even with this coalition, we've had one party basically running everything, largely on account of the Lib Dems low yield of seats in the Commons. They'd have something like 100 more under PR, and might have been something slightly more than whipping boys and/or political shields if that had been the case.

 

Only 5 parties have seats though, and the CDU and CSU are very similar. Currently we have:

 

Tories

Labour

Lib Dems

UKIP

Greens

SNP

Plaid Cymru

DUP

Sinn Fein

SDLP

Alliance

Respect

 

And this is with tactical voting. With PR and non-tactical voting it'd be an utter mess, with fringe parties garnering more seats. Laws would seldom get made or passed.

[Wes Tender]

I disagree. Proportional representation is obviously the fairest method, it just doesn't suit the whole red v blue agenda.

 

I would have voted green in all the past elections if my vote would have actually counted for anything, instead I've had to vote Lib Dem to try and stop the Tory candidate. I expect the same happens up and down the country, how is that a good democratic process?

 

PR is also flawed, but its proponents can't see them. Principally, it means that a certain percentage of candidates are elected to reflect the percentage of votes polled for a party, regardless of the attributes or shortcomings of the individual candidates, as one isn't voting effectively for individuals. Voting has to be based on much wider areas, thus potentially meaning that one area is represented by somebody living miles away with no local consituency knowledge apart from where they themselves live. Other systems like the single transferable vote are equally undemocratic in that because a candidate was the most popular in terms of gaining a majority of votes, they might be replaced by another candidate purely on the negative grounds that if say 35% voted for them, they didn't have the support of 65% of the local electorate.

 

If there is a poll at a club to elect a comittee, the candidates with the most votes are elected to those posts. Why should it be that the club members would be unhappy with that system and argue that a majority of the members didn't vote for that person?

 

If you had voted Green in all of the past elections, why wouldn't your vote have counted for anything? Surely it would have counted as an endorsement from you for the Green Party policies. As it is, the other parties are entitled to believe that not many of the local electorate care a fig for Green policies, except those which are contained in the rival parties' manifestos under the heading of Environment.

[shurlock]

Only 5 parties have seats though, and the CDU and CSU are very similar. Currently we have:

 

Tories

Labour

Lib Dems

UKIP

Greens

SNP

Plaid Cymru

DUP

Sinn Fein

SDLP

Alliance

Respect

 

And this is with tactical voting. With PR and non-tactical voting it'd be an utter mess, with fringe parties garnering more seats. Laws would seldom get made or passed.

 

Nonsense. If laws weren't passed, perhaps its because their benefits werent spread widely enough - presumably Lord Hailsham's elective dictatorship which itself is destabilising is more your cup of tea. Mature democracies know how to negotiate and compromise without the threat of banana republic civil wars.

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/elective-dictatorship-democratic-mandate/

Edited 10 February, 2015 by shurlock

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Tosh. If laws weren't passed, it's simply because their benefits werent spread widely enough - perhaps Lord Hailsham's elective dictatorship is more your cup of tea. Mature democracies know how to negotiate and compromise without the threat of banana republic civil wars.

 

Not exactly, no. However, with such a range of opinions in the above parties I cannot ever see a consensus on laws that mattered. Nothing the governing party would put forward would get through, generally because of the childish nature of British politics, and a "I'm not aligning with that parties policies" attitude.

 

4 decent sized parties yes, but not 2 large, 6 medium. Can't see it working.

 

As said I think it's the fairest system, but I don't think it would suit us.

[buctootim]

PR is also flawed, but its proponents can't see them. Principally, it means that a certain percentage of candidates are elected to reflect the percentage of votes polled for a party, regardless of the attributes or shortcomings of the individual candidates, as one isn't voting effectively for individuals. Voting has to be based on much wider areas, thus potentially meaning that one area is represented by somebody living miles away with no local consituency knowledge apart from where they themselves live. Other systems like the single transferable vote are equally undemocratic in that because a candidate was the most popular in terms of gaining a majority of votes, they might be replaced by another candidate purely on the negative grounds that if say 35% voted for them, they didn't have the support of 65% of the local electorate.

 

If there is a poll at a club to elect a comittee, the candidates with the most votes are elected to those posts. Why should it be that the club members would be unhappy with that system and argue that a majority of the members didn't vote for that person?

 

If you had voted Green in all of the past elections, why wouldn't your vote have counted for anything? Surely it would have counted as an endorsement from you for the Green Party policies. As it is, the other parties are entitled to believe that not many of the local electorate care a fig for Green policies, except those which are contained in the rival parties' manifestos under the heading of Environment.

 

Thats a nonsense argument akin to 'because the alternatives aren't perfect we should stick with the worst option'. The various forms of PR represent the wishes of the electorate more accurately than first past the post. The only reason it hasn't been adopted is because it doesn't suit the self interest of Labour and the Tories.

[buctootim]

after this mish-mash of a govt. I sincerely hope we do not have another coalition of any sort again. Let alone a Govt. made up of many parties.

 

Theres nothing wrong with coalition, there's just problems with this coalition. Currently you have two not especially able leaders governing during a time of budget cuts and weak growth. If they'd been in government during a boom everyone would be saying how well it worked.

[pap]

As said I think it's the fairest system, but I don't think it would suit us.

 

That implies that the current system suits us. Look at the trouble it has caused. Parties with a decent majority get to make unilateral decisions despite not having a popular mandate to do so. Then the next lot spend more time and money reversing what the last lot did.

[shurlock]

Not exactly, no. However, with such a range of opinions in the above parties I cannot ever see a consensus on laws that mattered. Nothing the governing party would put forward would get through, generally because of the childish nature of British politics, and a "I'm not aligning with that parties policies" attitude.

 

4 decent sized parties yes, but not 2 large, 6 medium. Can't see it working.

 

As said I think it's the fairest system, but I don't think it would suit us.

 

As to instability, not sure the number of parties really matters as much as i) the number of dimensions along which policy is debated (in mature democraries, that's no more than two, -market vs state intervention; socially conservative vs. socially liberal, though it can increase during major crises) and ii) the bounds within which policy is determined (no party with sufficient clout really endorses a return to the nineteenth century nigh****chman state just as nobody advocates the socialisation of the means of production).

 

The likes of SNP and Plaid Cymru complicates i), adding a third, non-reducible dimension to the mix, though ultimately they hold broadly centre-left views with a tinge of liberal nationalism. The challenge of getting parties to cooperate and compromise is vastly overblown in my book.

[hypochondriac]

Theres nothing wrong with coalition, there's just problems with this coalition. Currently you have two not especially able leaders governing during a time of budget cuts and weak growth. If they'd been in government during a boom everyone would be saying how well it worked.

 

I don't think they have done too badly considering the economic climate. Could have been a hell of a lot worse.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

As to instability, not sure the number of parties really matters as much as i) the number of dimensions along which policy is debated (in mature democraries, that's no more than two, -market vs state intervention; socially conservative vs. socially liberal, though it can increase during major crises) and ii) the bounds within which policy is determined (no party with sufficient clout really endorses a return to the nineteenth century nigh****chman state just as nobody advocates the socialisation of the means of production).

 

The likes of SNP and Plaid Cymru complicates i), adding a third, non-reducible dimension to the mix, though ultimately they hold broadly centre-left views with a tinge of liberal nationalism. The challenge of getting parties to cooperate and compromise is vastly overblown in my book.

 

Fair enough, you obviously have more faith in them than I do...either way, the current system ain't great for voters or for governing parties.

[pap]

I don't think they have done too badly considering the economic climate. Could have been a hell of a lot worse.

 

Made a series of swingeing cuts, yet borrowed more?

 

Yeah, ace.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

That implies that the current system suits us. Look at the trouble it has caused. Parties with a decent majority get to make unilateral decisions despite not having a popular mandate to do so. Then the next lot spend more time and money reversing what the last lot did.

 

I do not think unilateral decisions are healthy, not at all, and where there is genuine disagreement across parties this should bear out. I just worry that politics in this country is so broken, and the point scoring is so childish and low, that the result would not be best for the electorate.

[shurlock]

Made a series of swingeing cuts, yet borrowed more?

 

Yeah, ace.

 

No worse than if the tories had won an outright majority, as many adherents of FTTP wanted from a governance perspective.

[Verbal]

PR is also flawed, but its proponents can't see them. Principally, it means that a certain percentage of candidates are elected to reflect the percentage of votes polled for a party, regardless of the attributes or shortcomings of the individual candidates, as one isn't voting effectively for individuals.

 

This isn't PR but just one variant of it - and not one that finds favour among many - known as the party list system. It's how the Euro elections work, and the Knesset and the upper chamber in Holland. When people talk about wanting PR for the UK lower-chamber elections they're mostly talking about STV.

 

If there is a poll at a club to elect a comittee, the candidates with the most votes are elected to those posts. Why should it be that the club members would be unhappy with that system and argue that a majority of the members didn't vote for that person?

 

This isn't a great analogy - there's just so much more at stake in a democratic society of 60+ million than in a bowling green committee. The problem with FPTP is that while it doesn't literally disenfranchise people who support parties with little support in 'safe' constituencies, it doesn't give them enough of a stake in the outcome of a vote. The better forms of PR do allow for a larger number of voters' second-choice candidates to gain support - and that does at least reflect opinion more broadly in a constituency, rather than awarding the result straight to someone who may only get 30-odd percent of votes cast.

 

It's not perfect - no system is. But if the ambition is to produce the 'least worst' form of democratic accountability, then PR is it. I'd add the Australian model of compulsory voting to it, contra Brand and his adoring groupie on here.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

This isn't PR but just one variant of it - and not one that finds favour among many - known as the party list system. It's how the Euro elections work, and the Knesset and the upper chamber in Holland. When people talk about wanting PR for the UK lower-chamber elections they're mostly talking about STV.

 

 

 

This isn't a great analogy - there's just so much more at stake in a democratic society of 60+ million than in a bowling green committee. The problem with FPTP is that while it doesn't literally disenfranchise people who support parties with little support in 'safe' constituencies, it doesn't give them enough of a stake in the outcome of a vote. The better forms of PR do allow for a larger number of voters' second-choice candidates to gain support - and that does at least reflect opinion more broadly in a constituency, rather than awarding the result straight to someone who may only get 30-odd percent of votes cast.

 

It's not perfect - no system is. But if the ambition is to produce the 'least worst' form of democratic accountability, then PR is it. I'd add the Australian model of compulsory voting to it, contra Brand and his adoring groupie on here.

 

[pap]

No worse than if the tories had won an outright majority, as many adherents of FTTP wanted from a governance perspective.

 

I'm not sure on that one. Depends if you believe that the Lib Dems have had any major success in reeling the Tories in. Most of the time, they were just offered up as the sacrificial lamb. The Tories would do something the Lib Dems expressly said they wouldn't, then all of the ire is inexplicably directed at the Lib Dems. I actually think they've been unwitting enablers of policy rather than any significant road block, and have prevented people from getting as píssed off with the Tories as they otherwise might have been.

[buctootim]

I do not think unilateral decisions are healthy, not at all, and where there is genuine disagreement across parties this should bear out. I just worry that politics in this country is so broken, and the point scoring is so childish and low, that the result would not be best for the electorate.

 

I think PR could help change that point scoring career politician mentality we have at the moment. PR would see more MPs from small parties elected, possibly even independents, leading to a greater mix of backgrounds and 'real life' experience. It would help break the ability of Tory and Labour party leaders and whips to buy unprincipled voting and servility by promising jobs in future governments.

Edited 10 February, 2015 by buctootim

[pap]

contra Brand and his adoring groupie on here.

 

Nice. Obsessed, but nice.

[Wes Tender]

Thats a nonsense argument akin to 'because the alternatives aren't perfect we should stick with the worst option'. The various forms of PR represent the wishes of the electorate more accurately than first past the post. The only reason it hasn't been adopted is because it doesn't suit the self interest of Labour and the Tories.

 

That's a nonsense conclusion that the existing system is the "worst option"

 

One wonders how it ever came about that it was chosen in the first place, doesn't one?

 

The crux of the matter is that there was a referendum on the voting system and the majority voted to keep it as it is. Now, no doubt you will bleat about the alternatives not including the system that you deem to be the fairest, but the fact remains that there was a majority in favour of the current system. No doubt you will also reason that the majority mostly comprised voters who traditionally support the two major parties whose self-interest was served by keeping this system,and moan about how unfair that is too.

[trousers]

Made a series of swingeing cuts, yet borrowed more?

 

Yeah, ace.