Question Nonpartisan politics

[xane]

BBC News - Winning elections without a majority

"Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has criticised the current electoral system because it is possible for a party to win the election while getting fewer votes than another party. How is it possible?"

Every argument has a flaw, I believe I've spotted this one, but I'd appreciate your suggestions in the spirit of reasonable debate.

The nice little table in the article shows "Party A", "Party B", "Party C".

Unfortunately, in a representative democracy you vote for candidates, not a political party. There is no such thing as "wasted votes" because a candidate cannot stand in more than one constituency, you either vote for them or you don't, end of.

It does so happen that the political parties only let one candidate stand per constituency, and it does happen that opinion polls are based on party rather than candidates, and we do have a media that panders to the "party" system, and most of us follow "football team" mentality in voting, but we do not have indirect representation in this country as yet and the BBC should not be pushing such tripe.

Not surprising that Cleggy makes a comment on this, his party wants MPs that no-one votes for so he can improve his personal political power, a fine supporter of democracy that man.

The real and sensible answer is, of course, to ban exclusive political parties altogether - you know it makes sense.

 

[ECA]

The real and sensible answer is, of course, to ban exclusive political parties altogether - you know it makes sense.

While I agree quite a lot - what's the replacement?

Where do you get the head of the executive ( PM+cabinet ) from?

 

[tierk]

Correct me if i am wrong but the General Election is considered a national election and as such the voting should reflect this. It is clearly a major issue when not a single government elected since 1935 has had the majority of public support in elections.

Good site that gives a basic understanding of what the main issues are.

 

[Furr]

Can't belive the wacky dems are going to be calling the shots, another election in August methinks, wonder if I can put a bet on that?

 

[rynnor]

In many ways voting in our system is a pointless exercise because even if the guy you voted in and his party win theres nothing forcing them to abide by their manifesto's.

We need to ditch MP's and go for direct voting on issues by the population if we actually want democracy.

 

[rynnor]

Can't belive the wacky dems are going to be calling the shots, another election in August methinks, wonder if I can put a bet on that?

Nah - it will take about a year or so - when the IMF steps in the Government will dissolve shortly afterwards.

 

[tierk]

even if the guy you voted in and his party win theres nothing forcing them to abide by their manifesto's

I cant think of any constitution that actually forces any elected official to carry out policies they campaigned and got elected on

 

[rynnor]

I cant think of any constitution that actually forces any elected official to carry out policies they campaigned and got elected on

So dispense with them? I cant see any reason why a system of electing proxies who you hope might act as you wish could ever be more democratic than just letting people vote on issues?

 

[tierk]

So dispense with them? I cant see any reason why a system of electing proxies who you hope might act as you wish could ever be more democratic than just letting people vote on issues?

Voting not the problem but rather how that vote is used or not used. Quite frankly its not an issue electing people to represent you its just stupid that the votes of the majority of the country is not taken into account at any General Election in the UK.

 

[Tom]

While I agree quite a lot - what's the replacement?

Where do you get the head of the executive ( PM+cabinet ) from?

We let her Majesty decide, as things should be.

 

[Chilly]

Can't belive the wacky dems are going to be calling the shots, another election in August methinks, wonder if I can put a bet on that?

ofc you can. betfair have a market for exactly that outcome.

 

[Jupitus]

ofc you can. betfair have a market for exactly that outcome.

Fucking LOL!

 

[Chilly]

im trying to get markets up for the next budget too, so people can hedge off the risk in increased booze & fags expenditure

 

[xane]

While I agree quite a lot - what's the replacement?

Replacement ? We already have a perfectly good system of election, it's being corrupted by partisan politics, the point here is we have to stop the corruption.

 

[xane]

Correct me if i am wrong but the General Election is considered a national election and as such the voting should reflect this. It is clearly a major issue when not a single government elected since 1935 has had the majority of public support in elections.

General elections are caused by when the monarch decides to dissolve parliament, which is normally on request of the Prime Minister, and must be done before an agreed time limit. This still has absolutely nothing to do with partisan politics and can function quite adequately without them.

 

[xane]

In many ways voting in our system is a pointless exercise because even if the guy you voted in and his party win theres nothing forcing them to abide by their manifesto's.

We need to ditch MP's and go for direct voting on issues by the population if we actually want democracy.

Direct democracy is a nice idea but probably unworkable and liable to result in increased voter apathy, you'd end up being ruled by an elite bunch of full time activists,

The issue about manifestos is my whole point, candidates stand under party banners to which they owe no allegiance, in fact, they are conning the electorate by proposing party policies to which they have no personal intention of supporting, unfortunately the "football team" mentality assures them safe seats.

 

[xane]

Where do you get the head of the executive ( PM+cabinet ) from?

Interesting question, there is no actual legal ruling as to the "head of government", a.k.a. Prime Minister, or a cabinet, it's nothing more than a gentleman's agreement supported by royal prerogative (as Tom states).

The Prime Minister holds position by mandate of the rest of parliament, and under the party system, it's obvious that candidates have agreed in advance who they'll select, and so the majority will win it for their leader, but there is absolutely nothing to stop any MP from picking someone else once elected, and MPs can easily chuck out a sitting Prime Minister by a vote of no confidence or similar.

This is another example of how we are brainwashed into thinking party politics is an integral part of our political system, it quite plainly isn't. Laws are enacted by majority vote in parliament and you don't need a "ruling government" or Prime Minister to do that, as the monarch signs them into law under whatever conditions they decide, there have been many cases of a "free vote" where the parties voluntarily withdraw whips, why not make every vote a free vote, have no whips and no parties ?

The looming danger is, we can establish a Constitution or Bill Of Rights, or introduce a party based PR vote, and the scam will be complete, our entire great British democracy will be wiped out overnight.

 

[tierk]

General elections are caused by when the monarch decides to dissolve parliament, which is normally on request of the Prime Minister, and must be done before an agreed time limit. This still has absolutely nothing to do with partisan politics and can function quite adequately without them.

I cant understand why you are quoting me in your above response. It has no bearing whatsoever on what i said, care to explain? Please don't take this as a flame post as i am really curious as to where you leading with this and how it is related to what i am saying.

 

[xane]

I cant understand why you are quoting me in your above response. It has no bearing whatsoever on what i said, care to explain? Please don't take this as a flame post as i am really curious as to where you leading with this and how it is related to what i am saying.

No flame intended. My reply was disputing the idea of a "national election" as being fundamental, this concept is perpetuated by political parties for their own selfish power, but the reality is that in a representative democracy you should actually vote for who represents you in government, not who runs the country.

 

[Will]

Direct democracy is a nice idea but probably unworkable and liable to result in increased voter apathy, you'd end up being ruled by an elite bunch of full time activists.

I can see ways to make it workable, though setting it up wouldn't be cheap. There would be ways to make it easier for people to be involved without power being handed over to full-time activists. Or maybe a compromise solution where elected representatives prepare policies, the public are polled, and then it is refined?

The main problem with the idea in my head is that it would be somewhat open to being exploited by the press. Maybe we'd have to ban media monopolies first.

 

[tierk]

but the reality is that in a representative democracy you should actually vote for who represents you in government, not who runs the country.

Ok you have lost me here. National elections are held every 5 years (max) but are not relevant because we vote for who is representing us in government but not who runs the country right? What exactly is the purpose of government then if it is not to decide how to run the country and which policies to implement or not?

Now my main point is the fact that every government elected since 1930’s has failed to win a majority of the votes cast and in some cases a minority – ok they didn’t last long but the point still stands. How can these governments be deemed to represent the country when clearly more people have voted against the “winner” then for them? PR would go a long way towards addressing this issue.

 

[xane]

What exactly is the purpose of government then if it is not to decide how to run the country and which policies to implement or not?

"The government" does not need to be a single party.

We vote MPs to represent us in parliament, they represent our interests, which forms policies, which equates to what "running the country" means. It is not necessary for my MP to share exactly the same policies ("manifesto") as another MP, only that the individual policies are in the majority across all MPs, it doesn't have to be the same majority MPs on each and every policy.

The concept of a single party with a single manifesto deciding everything, and then giving dire warnings of coalitions and hung parliaments, is all part of a scam perpetuated by political parties, it doesn't have to work that way.

PR would go a long way towards addressing this issue

Only for political parties, for independents it would be a disaster and would wipe them out. I don't like most PR schemes because they involve "party seats", i.e. people who nobody votes for.

 

[tierk]

"The government" does not need to be a single party. We vote MPs to represent us in parliament, they represent our interests, which forms policies, which equates to what "running the country" means. It is not necessary for my MP to share exactly the same policies ("manifesto") as another MP, only that the individual policies are in the majority across all MPs, it doesn't have to be the same majority MPs on each and every policy.

Although in principle you are right, if we had no political parties and if we had just a whole heap of independent MP's in parliament I fear that we would get nothing done as each MP would have his own agenda. IIRC the way you describe above is what Britain's parliament was like 300 or so years ago and I don't believe that it is compatible with modern day life to revert. There is a reason why we have political parties today and we didn't just magically arrive with this system, it is one that has evolved over a couple of hundred years.

The concept of a single party with a single manifesto deciding everything, and then giving dire warnings of coalitions and hung parliaments, is all part of a scam perpetuated by political parties, it doesn't have to work that way.

It's the same scam that has been pulled at every election by both the two main parties. On this we have agreement at least, however, to continue with what is clearly a broken system, for me at least, seems irrational and the whole issue of how we elect MP's needs to be looked at and fundamentally changed. The very thought that we have been governed since the 1930's by consecutive governments that have not had real majority vote seems just plain wrong to me and explains why we have such negative outlook about politicians and politics as a whole in the UK today.

 

[MrHorus]

While I agree quite a lot - what's the replacement?

Where do you get the head of the executive ( PM+cabinet ) from?

As much as I hate to say it, the French system is fairly sensible.

They vote for their local representative to sit in the National Assembly at the same time as they vote for their President, the head of state.

The President has some political and ceremonial powers, but the most important power is that he picks someone from the National Assembly to become his Prime Minister. Now, if the President's party has a lot of Assembly seats then he can choose a PM that's favourable to him and can advance the his and his party's agenda. If the Assembly is hostile then he basically needs to choose an opposition PM in order for the Executive to function and there will be a degree of horsetrading over which policies go through during the life of the government.

In such a situation, the President is largely restricted to ceremonial and constitutional duties and foreign policy.

Now, we don't really have anything in this country that could be a direct replacement for our system but the Liberals favour democratic reform and an elected House of Lords. If we had an elected Lords and an expanded role for the Leader of the Lords (maybe the public elect them?) then perhaps we could adopt elements of the French system and modernise our democracy somewhat.

I hate to give props to the French as much as the next man does, but they really do seem to have a better system than we do.