Videos on YouTube can have country restrictions. Btw for me the youtube link does work and the liveleak one doesn'tOriginally Posted by Loki
Says no playable sources found.
Videos on YouTube can have country restrictions. Btw for me the youtube link does work and the liveleak one doesn't
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Funny video.
Got to love the BBC bias:
BBC licence for UK viewers, so blocked in UK.
Just search Harry Enfield, L is for Labour on You-tube anyways, and you get to see it in the UK due to someone doing the usual filming of their teevee and posting it.
I must confess I'm having difficulties seeing this matter entirely from your pov.
It's true that there are no perfect solutions to democracy, but we can at least evaluate the ways in which various solutions are better or worse than their alternatives, and be honest about what we value the most. The reason I have problems with accepting the legitimacy of the parliaments yielded by FPtP-systems is that FPtP, afaics, extinguishes the voices of most voters.
Looking at the example of the UK, a majority of the seats for each of the two major parties--and a majority of seats overall--are considered safe. However, your average MP is endorsed by less than a third of his constituency, and that's without considering tactical voting. If you're a voter in the wrong place, you essentially have no representation in your parliament and no reasonable way of getting it. Your vote is, in effect, worthless, wasted. You don't even have a fighting chance.
That, to me, seems unfair. It is also a disincentive to vote or to participate in the democratic process in general which is, in my view, another disadvantage. I realise that some of you believe it's not particularly important to promote participation in a modern democracy and obviously we can't see eye to eye on that matter.
Loki gives an example of a PR system where many voters are occasionally held hostage by an intransigent and evil minority. This example has several problems. It presupposes that those 10% of policies are directly against the wishes of those who voted for the larger party in the coalition, when they may instead be acceptable compromises or even welcome complements for many of those voters as well as for voters in the opposition. It also disregards the fact that voters can punish their representatives for making alliances that are unacceptable. Further, it implies that this kind of problem would not occur in an FPtP system, but, considering how the US government has done in recent years, I'm having difficulties seeing how FPtP can in and of itself safeguard against the disproportionate influence of the lunatic fringe. The only things that can truly safeguard against the loonies are their subversion and defeat or cooperation between less crazy parties. Finally, a system that enables the existence of more than two viable parties should give rise to more parties that are sufficiently different from one another to give voice to more voters, but sufficiently close to one another to be able to cooperate in a coalition. If nothing else, more voters will see their views represented in parliament where they have a fighting chance.
Re. the objection that, in alternatives to FPtP, politicians make the coalitions once the elections are over, why is that a problem? People elect politicians to represent them and delegate power to those representatives. Why is it problematic to delegate the power to form coalitions that they deem to be in the best interests of their voters? If they make the wrong decisions, they can be punished in the next election, provided people are interested in accountability. Parties can also be perfectly open about who they wish to form a coalition with prior to the election and present proposed policy changes together.
Last edited by Aimless; 05-13-2015 at 02:05 PM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If the majority party liked the policies of the 10% party, why wouldn't that be in its own manifesto?
Hope is the denial of reality
If they were then there would really be no problems with joining forces, but maybe they like some policies but not others, or maybe some of them like some of those policies better their own party's, or maybe they don't like but can accept, or maybe they can make beneficial compromises, etc etc.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What makes you think that the policies of the 40% party don't represent the majority, using that very same logic?
Hope is the denial of reality
Because they merely represent a plurality?
Congratulations America
You seem to be conflating a few issues together which are best dealt with separately.
Safe seats - this only exists because a large plurality of the area vote the same way, but they're not perfectly safe and not necessarily as safe as in PR. Huge numbers of supposedly safe seats fell at this election and at many other elections. I see at the last election in Sweden that the Social Democrat party had a net gain of one seat. How many of their prior seats were lost or were they all safe? The Conservatives at this election had a net gain of 28 seats but that included 9 sitting MPs losing their seats including for example the Minister for Employment, Esther McVey. Labour lost net just 24 seats but as well as retiring MPs whose seats were lost they lost 39 sitting MPs including many supposedly safe seats and two of the four most senior members of the party.
Average MP endorsed by less than a third - I'd like to see a source for that stat. However lets not forget that there's a proud tradition of backing protest parties with votes when it doesn't matter, from the Monster Raving Loony Party to the Greens. These loonies aren't the most popular though so aren't elected - but if they became the most popular they'd win.
Tactical voting - This is the voter's choice. The voter is empowered to vote however they choose, rather than having some shady deal made after the vote.
Lunatic fringe - seriously you can't see how FPTP protects against lunatics? How many far left or far right extremists are in office across the continent? How many in the UK?
And the 10% party represents less than the plurality.
Hope is the denial of reality
40%>10% - I fail to see what's hard to understand about that.
Loki, as usual, makes a point but doesn't elaborate anywhere near enough for anyone to recognize it unless they were already thinking along those same lines.
Minx, you have a disconnect in your own thinking. You allege that we don't have a metric for indicating whether the the polices requested/demanded by a minority coalition-partner are actually disliked or disapproved by people who voted for other coalition partners which is true, but you don't seem to recognize that the exact same logic speaks against your insistence wrt people being silenced in a FPTP system. You can't say that generally one group a voter did not vote for can legitimately represent them, just because they happened to make a post-vote agreement with another party, and simultaneously say that another group they didn't vote for does not represent them (there actually are a few more complex systems which can make that true some of the time, but they're not the standard model). Being PR doesn't transmute what people vote for. If they did not vote for the Green party they did not vote for the Green party's policies, regardless of whether the Green party is in a coalition or not, regardless of whether PR is being followed or FPTP.
And Minx, kindly refrain from trying to pull the US into this. It does not and cannot fit, it's not a parliamentary system in the first place. Any point you try to make with such a comparison is necessarily a red herring.
Very late edit: Removed a confusing double negative
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 03-17-2017 at 06:19 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
And where does the difference stop being relevant? None of the parties in the UK got 40% of the vote. The present government has majority rule on the basis of 1 out of every 3 votes cast.
Not very much unlike how Syriza is driving Greece into the ground on the basis of getting 1/3 (and yes I know they are in a coalition with ANEL). isn't it wonderful how the Greeks can take any system and make it into something horrible?
Congratulations America
I like my gin with tonic. If I can't have both gin and tonic, or if the tonic is mixed with pee, or if I have to choose between gin on the one hand and Malibu with milk on the other, then I prefer gin alone. But in my dream world my gin is in a coalition with tonic or at least they're both at the table trying to work out the proportions.
You're coming from a perspective where winner takes all is the natural way of things and perhaps that's why you aren't seeing how people can have different lists of ranked preferences and how different constellations of parties might be able to satisfy different constellations of voters. I'm coming from a perspective where the winner doesn't take all and voters often have to consider the coalitions. If the centre-right coalition parties' voters strongly disapproved of their cooperation, they would have expressed that disapproval more strongly.
In the latest election, a large number of seats went to the Sweden Democrats. Why? Perhaps it was partly because the party either offers a mix that appeals more to many voters, or perhaps because their platform contains one ingredient that many voters value more than anything else. Either way, peoples' preferences aren't always easy to categorise or ascertain from the choices they're forced to make when constrained by various rules. If they were, then it wouldn't matter what electoral system a country used because people wouldn't change their behaviour and the results would be exactly the same anyway.
As for the US, I realise that you don't have a parliamentary system, but, afaict you do have something that is, in essence, a FPtP system and no shortage of hostage-taking loonies.
That being said, the analogy was in error but for another reason. The UKIP's voters, loonies though they may be, are probably no longer the "fringe"
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The question doesn't make sense. Sweden's parliament features proportional representation with an open party list, but the number of seats each party gets depends on the outcome of the popular vote. Seats in the Swedish parliament aren't won by winning electorates. There is proportional representation at the national, country and municipal levels.
Unless the UK has changed dramatically since 2010:Average MP endorsed by less than a third - I'd like to see a source for that stat. However lets not forget that there's a proud tradition of backing protest parties with votes when it doesn't matter, from the Monster Raving Loony Party to the Greens. These loonies aren't the most popular though so aren't elected - but if they became the most popular they'd win.
http://www.may2015.com/ideas/not-a-s...-constituency/
And that's without taking turnout into consideration.
Why should someone vote for a protest party when there is a real party that they prefer? But, of course, why should someone vote at all if their real party has no shot of getting into the parliament? Perhaps that's why two thirds of your voters don't bother to vote.
The Conservatives at this election had a net gain of 28 seats but that included 9 sitting MPs losing their seats including for example the Minister for Employment, Esther McVey. Labour lost net just 24 seats but as well as retiring MPs whose seats were lost they lost 39 sitting MPs including many supposedly safe seats and two of the four most senior members of the party.Orwell would be impressed but it's kinda messed up to speak of people being forced to make bad choices as being "empowered". The voters can vote however they choose, but they do not have the power to make their vote count.Tactical voting - This is the voter's choice. The voter is empowered to vote however they choose, rather than having some shady deal made after the vote.
Either that's a problem--your loonies aren't getting the seats they deserve--or it's a sign of your awesome culture. It's not a necessary consequence of the FPtP system other than through its ability to quash the fringe along with almost everything else.Lunatic fringe - seriously you can't see how FPTP protects against lunatics? How many far left or far right extremists are in office across the continent? How many in the UK?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
One thing though, since Rand said you vote for a person nor a party, your PM got 25.000 votes out of about 30 million. At least ours personally got more than 2 million out of 10 million.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
But if a party gets a roughly similar proportion then all the seats at the top of the list are "safe seats". Just as much, if not more, as in the UK.
Its a simple question so I'll repeat it. How many of the Social Democrat parties MPs (or whatever you call them) that were seeking re-election failed in their bid to be re-elected?
That link loses all credibility as its talking about proportion of the electorate not proportion of votes. It is taking into account turnout which is utterly stupid. Anyone who fails to vote is someone whose view isn't taken into account in any system.Unless the UK has changed dramatically since 2010:
http://www.may2015.com/ideas/not-a-s...-constituency/
And that's without taking turnout into consideration.
Again where are you getting your facts from? Turnout was 66.1% so the idea two thirds don't vote in a General Election is absolutely false.Why should someone vote for a protest party when there is a real party that they prefer? But, of course, why should someone vote at all if their real party has no shot of getting into the parliament? Perhaps that's why two thirds of your voters don't bother to vote.
Whereas if backdoor deals are made after an election in coalition negotiations then no voter is choosing. So great well done! In our system people are making their choice before the election, in yours deals are made not by the voters but by the powers that be afterwards. No systems perfect but I'd rather our system.Orwell would be impressed but it's kinda messed up to speak of people being forced to make bad choices as being "empowered". The voters can vote however they choose, but they do not have the power to make their vote count.
Partly its culture. But where's your hang up that the loonies deserve seats. They deserve seats if they can convince a plurality of voters to choose them. Getting a few nutjobs to go for them isn't enough. The bar is set to the person who is ranked first everywhere, hence why its called First Past the Post. What makes lunatics be deserved anything if they fail to come first anywhere?Either that's a problem--your loonies aren't getting the seats they deserve--or it's a sign of your awesome culture. It's not a necessary consequence of the FPtP system other than through its ability to quash the fringe along with almost everything else.
Your logic is self-reinforcing and broken. You say they deserve seats because you believe in PR, and you say not having PR is broken because we don't have PR. Err, that's a truism.
So you vote for a person not a party too? Your PM got 2 million personal votes? I said we vote for a person AND a party. My ballot paper had the name and logo of the party next to the name of the candidate and the candidate's home address.
We don't have a Presidential system. The PM represents the majority of ministers, he is not directly elected. The PM can change mid-Parliament (and will this time since Cameron is retiring towards the end of this Parliament). The new Tory leader will become PM without a national vote since we don't have a President.
We have parties and personal votes - all votes for everybody on a party's list count towards that party's result, but if lower placed candidates get enough votes they can bump others down. So generally the leader gets (by far) most votes, as he is at the top and the best known, but you do actually vote for a person. Also why if someone leaves his party he can keep the seat unless he decides himself to give it up.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Strictly speaking we don't even have party discipline. And indeed very often the coalitions are hammered out by people who personally have recieved the votes of huge chunks of the electorate. Not just the plurality in a district.
Congratulations America
Oh, I'm coming from a "winner takes all" is the natural way of things perspective, am I? Is that why I said "there actually are a few more complex systems which can make that true some of the time, but they're not the standard model"? Or perhaps it's why I said "With certain longstanding partners, or possibly in some ranked-priority voting examples, maybe it can be considered the case that the voting for a party included the predicted coalition partners and their interests but I wouldn't be willing to make assert that as a general principle of parliamentary coalitions," even earlier, hmm?
If you want to assume all the complexities and modifications to the the system, not a single one of which is followed by the the majority of parliamentary implementations, than you should perhaps specify ahead of time that you're including all of them rather than just saying "parliament" and taking both our capability to mind-read for granted, but also that naturally any system under discussion will inevitably follow your presumptions on the basis of precisely no given evidence or reason.
I made it very clear what I was discussing Minx. You, OTOH, are apparently aping GGT. Why?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Regarding gin and tonic, that is what FPTP creates. You may have the gin party, or the tonic party, or the pee party and have to come up with some mix therein. You get no say which parties will end up in coalition and have to hope its one you like.
Whereas when you have FPTP the two parties end up being a rather broad church with a big tent to win the election. The Conservatives might say we are the party of gin and tonic while Labour might go out with vodka and coke and you get to decide in advance which you prefer. Unless you get to pick multiple parties I don't see how you vote for both the gin party and the tonic party to ensure they end up together, whereas here you'll see both parties mixture up front.
UKIP seem increasingly determined to tear themselves apart. Perhaps Farage should split off now and create a new party called Nigel's Alliance for Zero Immigration, if he can think of a suitable acronym
Interesting article on "Inside the Milibunker" about the delusions of the Labour leadership and what went wrong.
In the category shooting in your own foot; by refusing to take 2000 refugees under a revised Dublin agreement, the UK may find itself stuck with illegal immigrants it can deport under the same said agreement (13.000 last year).UKIP seem increasingly determined to tear themselves apart. Perhaps Farage should split off now and create a new party called Nigel's Alliance for Zero Immigration, if he can think of a suitable acronym
Interesting article on "Inside the Milibunker" about the delusions of the Labour leadership and what went wrong.
Congratulations America
The UK has an opt-out from asylum policies and if we took refugees now under EU instructions that's something that could swing the country to Out regrettably. I'd personally be OK with us taking more refugees.
But do you have any source for the claim we'd be stuck with 13k refugees? Or that we'd only be asked to take 2k?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...plan-criticism
The last paragraph of that article is about the right to send people back to the first EU country they arrived in. I don't know where I got the number from any longer, but appearantly the UK sent back 13.000 people last year.
Congratulations America
No actual negotiations necessary but does Twitter count:
Twitter Link
I think you've misread this article then if you think its about 2k people vs 13k.
This article says that Britain would be taking an immediate 2,309 from 20k known refugees. We would then be taking a share of the on-going "flood of migrants". Our share of this isn't known but it's safe to assume it'd be at least a similar proportion - and it would be on-going. There would also be a long-term shift for redistribution going forwards too. So this 2k is just the tip of the iceberg.
Worth noting too the criteria used to decide where migrants would be allocated too. "Based on population size, national wealth, number of asylum seekers already present and unemployment levels". Hmm can you think of a wealthy nation with a large population, with relatively few asylum seekers currently with low and falling unemployment levels?
Now such criteria make sense on a holistic approach to Europe. Our government is interested in the UK though - and Britain, Ireland and Denmark have an opt out to this. If this was a great deal for Britain, then nobody would care about us opting out. Germany wants this as it would halve their share from what they currently have, now which wealthy low-unemployment nations would be taking that load off Germany?
Clearly it's become unfashionable to say you're conservative to strangers.
Winning.
Science has proven that COAL = SOCIALISM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
