How likely is it that a fringe party would win a substantial number of seats in a FPTP system?
How likely is it that a fringe party would win a substantial number of seats in a FPTP system?
Hope is the denial of reality
Move on? From not having a vote? No.Originally Posted by RandBlade
There's nothing democratic about a system which chucks a large percentage of people's votes in the bin. You can't just say "oh, that's the system and you have to win under it".I'd the crazies want power they can win it democratically by beating their opponents not just taking part.
I really can't get past the fact that when you vote in PR systems, you vote counts toward the result.FPTP is no more corrupt than PR. Each has advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the democratic process. In PR, small parties have disproportionate influence over legislation, for instance. Coalition decisions are also made behind closed doors, which isn't exactly a triumph for democracy.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
But then your wishes are entirely ignored when it comes to deciding who governs.
Hope is the denial of reality
Depends on the voting system of the government, that's a different issue.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
A government needs the support of 51% of MPs. PR almost never creates majorities for a single party, which necessitates coalitions. Do voters have any influence over the coalitions that are formed? Did the German voters support the Grand Coalition? In a FPTP system, you know what you're getting. Any kind of coalitions are made ahead of elections, so voters can make an informed choice about who they want in power. That's much less the case in PR systems.
Hope is the denial of reality
But enough about FPTP.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Utter bullshit, if anything, voters of smaller parties are listened to a lot better. For the simple reason that they are very often needed to form majorities.
As for the British system; it would be in utter disarray if SNP turns the aftermath of the referendum into a blood bath for Scottish Labour and UKIP manages to chip off some seats on the other side.
Congratulations America
Congratulations America
The voters of the smaller parties don't get to decide which larger parties their parties join in governing. And as I already mentioned, those smaller parties end up having disproportionate say in governance.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yeah, all true, if the government is voted by the MPs. There is nothing against voting the government directly, many cantons do it that way inclusive my own (Zürich). It was also proposed to vote the Swiss government directly, but the referendum was rejected by a large margin. So if the people vote not to vote the government it's OK isn't it?
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
You can similarly claim that people have voted for constitutions that allow FPTP voting instead of PR. And presumably, if there was strong support for PR, any political party that proposed such a policy would do extremely win in the next election.
I strongly recommend people read about Arrow's Theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's...bility_theorem
Hope is the denial of reality
Of course, it seems the UK is doing fine with FPTP, but I wouldn't like it, and I doubt it would get much support here, we already have a majority voting for our "Senate". FPTP wouldn't fit our political culture very much, we have the idea that as many groups as possible should participate in the process, and in the end the majority wins, not the other way around.
I don't agree here. I don't thing that people care about a voting system that much to vote a different party over it.And presumably, if there was strong support for PR, any political party that proposed such a policy would do extremely win in the next election.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
If they don't care enough about the voting system to choose a party on that basis, then they're clearly not being disenfranchised by being "forced" to vote under their current system.
And like I said, I think PR and FPTP both have democratic and undemocratic elements. Which one makes more sense in a given country depends on its own context and history.
Hope is the denial of reality
Extraordinairily unlikely in the UK given that currently the not-moderate parties have either no seats or just one seat (I'm counting the Greens one who are now virtually communist as not moderate). UKIP have no seats, maybe one soon due to a defection, BNP never had a seat. I don't think any are going to end in a kingmaker position.
You have a vote. All you need to have your candidate elected is win more votes than anyone else. This isn't some "prizes for everyone" competition, its an election which has winners (those who win the most votes) and losers (everyone else).
Yes there is and yes you can. Anyone can win under FPTP, just get more votes.There's nothing democratic about a system which chucks a large percentage of people's votes in the bin. You can't just say "oh, that's the system and you have to win under it".
Oh and in EVERY democratic system once the representatives are elected then everyone's votes are in the bin.
And I really can't get past the fact that when you vote in our system, your vote counts towards the result. Even if you lose your vote still counted, just you lost.I really can't get past the fact that when you vote in PR systems, you vote counts toward the result.
Or the fact that we've had a REFERENDUM about this already and 13 million people said no to changing the system against 6 million who said yes. Why do you want to chuck the votes of MORE THAN DOUBLE those who wanted change into the bin?
That's a flaw not a benefit.
Not really. If need be then like currently we'll form a coalition or have a minority government.As for the British system; it would be in utter disarray if SNP turns the aftermath of the referendum into a blood bath for Scottish Labour and UKIP manages to chip off some seats on the other side.
The ones that profit from the system probably wont be against it, and that is usually a large enough part. That makes it really hard to get all of the rest to agree with a change. People tend to say no more often than yes in referendums anyways.
I agree with that, you where the one starting the whole discussion with a - IMO - rather stupid argument of "crazy" parties reaching 30% of the PMs.And like I said, I think PR and FPTP both have democratic and undemocratic elements. Which one makes more sense in a given country depends on its own context and history.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Um, the crazies in Austria have nearly that many votes.
Hope is the denial of reality
So what, aren't we all a little crazy? I could argue that the GOP had more than 50% of the MPs several times.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
That is demonstrably not true. FPTP is explicitly not about the popular vote.
Again, the popular vote is irrelevant under FPTP.Yes there is and yes you can. Anyone can win under FPTP, just get more votes.
What does this even mean? Yes, when the vote is concluded, the votes are no longer used. What?Oh and in EVERY democratic system once the representatives are elected then everyone's votes are in the bin.
You know perfectly well it's not about winning or losing. I could have voted Tory last time around and my complaint would still be the same.And I really can't get past the fact that when you vote in our system, your vote counts towards the result. Even if you lose your vote still counted, just you lost.
Are you saying it's undemocratic to hold an opinion which has already been voted down in a referendum?Or the fact that we've had a REFERENDUM about this already and 13 million people said no to changing the system against 6 million who said yes. Why do you want to chuck the votes of MORE THAN DOUBLE those who wanted change into the bin?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Are you really comparing the GOP to the FPO?
Hope is the denial of reality
Of course, from my place, the FPÖ holds as crazy values as the GOP. Don't forget, you are used to your own crazyness. That doesn't mean a continental European will think the GOP is "normal". Of course if you share Aimless views on immigration, the FPÖ is the devil itself. Aaannd you shouldn't believe everything the BBC writes about continental Europe either
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Determination about how a extreme a political party is must be made on the basis of their society's values, not on some global comparison. I mean, the fascists in Europe aren't too bad when compared to North Korea, right?
Does one have to be pro-immigration to be against racism by the way?
Hope is the denial of reality
And who divines society's values? It must be mentioned that large parts of non-urban Austria are still very conservative. That can be said about other European countries as well.
According to lefties and leftist media, yes. My opinion is different, but I don't think I reach as many readers.Does one have to be pro-immigration to be against racism by the way?
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
See, and this is what happens when you try to quantify "bad". You get nonsense like "a murder equals two rapes" or somesuch. I'm also a bit dubious on the impossibility to do global comparisons.
After all, the definition of where a society "begins" or "ends" are somewhat arbitrary, no?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I've always been a bit puzzled by this position. It claims that if you don't win then you aren't a part of the system. If you were engaged in direct democracy (like the Scottish referendum) would you also say you had no say if/when the position you voted for lost? Because they're the exact same thing.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The essential question to me is, is voting for a parliament about losing and winning. A referendum is clearly about winning or losing, but a parliament, especially the "great chamber" or "lower house" shouldn't be about losing or winning but about representation. Now I agree with Loki that there is no perfect representation, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to get the best one available.
Our canton recently switched the system because the federal court ruled the old one to be not representative enough. Now we have the Biproportional apportionment system developed by Pukelsheim.
It manages to represent parties and districts. One of the major flaws it, that the last seats of each party gets distributed to the remaining seats of the districs in a iterative process, which makes it almost random.
To put it more simply, the chances your vote for the party is "lost" is slim but the chances your vote for the candidate(s) from your district get lost is still high, maybe even higher than before.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Exact same? Last time I looked, in direct democracy you get to vote again and again and again. And you're voting on the issues themselves, by the way.
In FPTP you get to vote once in a while and then you're out of luck in the mean time. And you're not voting on the issues themselves, only indirectly, based on whatever the politician/party in question deems to be appropriate promises during campaigning. "All votes for anyone other than the second place are votes for the winner", the saying goes, I believe.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
You aren't in the least bit puzzled, Fuzzy. You are a bright boy, and you understand this. It's not hard. You're just engaging in the apparently common practice of engaging in willful blindness towards the gaping flaws in our respective democracies because... uh... fucked if I know. I'm not an expert on how people who aren't me think.
All votes cast in the Scottish referendum were counted toward the final total, but in a FPTP the post system they're only counted up until the point a sub-region is decided, after which they are irrelevant. Under the Westminster system, there is no difference whatsoever between winning a constituency by a single vote or a landslide, making all those extra votes meaningless. This is not democratic. Again, it's not about winning or losing; I could vote for the winning candidate in my constituency and my vote would be just as wasted as if I'd voted for the Standing at the Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party.
You can, of course, explain this by saying that, when viewed from the right angle my vote actually represents the abstract concept of my MP in theory representing me to parliament and in some vague way deciding who forms the next government but is not how it works in practice and has always and only been a big pile of horseshit. You can stuff your metaphorical vote, I want a real one. Why do you think we see such comparatively low turn outs in safe seats? Because people know perfectly well that this 'you have a vote on paper, but not actually' stuff is crap.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
How is that different to the referendum passing whether the Yes side wins by 1 vote or by 5 million?
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm a bit dubious why there need to be such districts in a national referendum or election.
It may have made sense in a time where messages were passed on by horse couriers. But in this modern age?
Because you can have elections where the majority of the nation votes for one guy and the other one is actually elected?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote