[Sgt Pepper]

@pete wrote:

Lets not forget BNP voters too. Lets say Labour got 30 % of the vote, Libs 15 % Conservatives 45% and the other 10% shared amongst UKIP BNP etc. It is possible for a party the majority of the electorate voted for to have little or no say in the running of the country.

True Pete, the biggest vote winner may not be returned to government, but to be fair that can apply to most, if not all, parliamentary democracies, especially if no overall majority threshold is reached by the largest party and the opposite numbers add up. A perfect example of this could (and almost did) apply in relation to the aftermath of the recent UK election.
Just as last Thursday’s result demonstrates that FPTP does not always guarantee an outright winner, so PR does not always presuppose that the party with the most votes gets frozen out.
For example, the Single Transferable Vote system used in parliamentary elections for my own country has in relatively recent history thrown up majority, largest vote winning single party governments as well as two party and alternative multi-party coalition arrangements. In all likelihood the next Irish government will have a single party majority, or very close to it. What is and was significant with all these results however is that every seat taken was at least relatively proportional to the number of votes cast.
The results table in my previous post plainly illustrates that this was not the case in the UK election.

With regard to the BNP, of course they should not be forgotten. Over half a million people voted for them and as unpalatable as it may seem to some, democracy must be served with at least the potential for a BNP seat allocation in proportion to the votes they acquired. A PR system would come closest to addressing such a ratio.

So, in answer to your point above, PR systems can and often do carry the party who wins the most votes over the line, but – and this is crucial – rarely (if ever) at the expense of the votes to seats ratio of other parties… an inadequacy that is evidently clear in the FPTP system.
Whilst having the imperfections of other representative democracies, this is where PR (and in particular STV) is essentially fairer than other voting methods.

Now..

@pete wrote:

You vote for an MP you want to “represent” your constituency as much as the party itself. If the majority want a particular party they get that party. With PR which MP’s are assigned to which areas ? Suppose the electorate doesnt want that MP, or do MP’s no longer fight for funds etc for a particular area ?

Although I totally agree that on many occasions “You vote for an MP you want to “represent” your constituency as much as the party itself” , I’m not sure I fully follow what you mean by “With PR which MP’s are assigned to which areas ?” or the subsequent points raised.
PR neither negates or diminishes the dual electoral importance of local and national interest (though some Tory scaremongers would argue against the former) but rather brings that potential fusion closer to fruition, especially with STV where larger multi-seat constituencies ranging in size from 3 to 5 seat battlegrounds allow the voter much more choice and flexibility. Numerical preferences are applied to the ballot, with the ordered transfers keeping your vote active in the event of your first preference being elected by passing a predetermined (vote to seat calculated) quota or in your first preference being eliminated by polling in last place. This vote transfer system can continue through numerous counts until the required number of MPs are elected, by either reaching the quota or being left remaining after mass eliminations.

MPs are at all times directly elected from the constituencies they run in, to uphold the dual mandate of representing that constituency on the ground whilst also taking their seats in the national assembly, and are never “assigned” in any way.

The same applies to the AV (Alternative Vote) method that the UK has been promised a referendum on soon, and a system that is used for Irish Presidential elections.
Although many don’t see this as democratically proportional as STV when it comes to parliamentary elections, it is yet again a hell of a lot fairer than FPTP.
AV usually (but not always) presupposes single seat constituencies, wherein winning 50 percent of the votes cast deems a candidate elected. Like STV, voting is done by numerical preference, but unlike STV it is invariably a one seat fight and only when your 1st preference candidate is eliminated for coming in last can your number 2 choice become active. In the event of no candidate reaching the 50 percent mark on the first count, transfers from the eliminated candidates in subsequent counts tend to bring the winner over the threshold.

It is interesting to note that the Lib Dems campaigned for a referendum on STV for the British people, but the furthest their new coalition partners would go on PR was a vote on AV.. A vote which (to the best of my knowledge) the Tories will be free to campaign against.

Welcome to 21st Century coalition government :)

[Sgt Pepper]

@pete wrote:

and is going to give us hung parliaments where the minority party holds far more sway than the public voted for

Hmmm :-k …

Let’s have a look at some of the national results from last Thursday..

CONSERVATIVE PARTY – Votes 10,706,647 – Seats 306
LABOUR PARTY – Votes 8,604,358 – Seats 258
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS – Votes 6,827,938 – Seats 57
UKIP – Votes 917,832 – Seats 0
BNP – Votes 563,743 – Seats 0
SNP – Votes 491,386 – Seats 6
GREENS – Votes 285,616 – Seats 1
SINN FEIN – Votes 171,942 – Seats 5
DUP – Votes 168,216 -Seats 8

Now, it doesn’t take a genius to see that the complete opposite to the above quote is at work here.
First up (as we all know) under this existing majority “first past the post” system the UK now has a hung parliament… Although granted, for the first time since 1974.
The more pressing and disproportionate shortcomings of the present system are worryingly numerous, ranging from the Liberal Democrats gaining a QUARTER of the TOTAL VOTES CAST yet taking LESS THAN TEN PERCENT of the SEATS to the likes of UKIP receiving almost as many votes as the SNP, GREENS, SINN FEIN and the DUP COMBINED yet winning NO SEATS as opposed to the others collecting TWENTY MPs.
Smaller parties holding more sway, yes… But hold on, this is the EXISTING system.

Granted yet again, regional and boundary issues with regard to the component countries within the UK inevitably play a part and would invariably warp to some extent the perceived proportionality of any system, but to state that PR would bring about situations “where the minority party holds far more sway than the public voted for” could be construed as a rather creative generalism. To be fair that’s not to say that PR in its various incarnations doesn’t have its flaws, it most certainly does. Smaller parties can be decisive and bargaining can prevail. But what is CRUCIAL is that EVERY party is afforded a REPRESENTATION and at least some form of proportionate ratio with regard to the numbers who actually vote for them! The numbers aren’t always perfect, but believe me they are a darn site closer to reality then the undemocratic stew that we see above.
It’s blatantly obvious from last Thursday’s hard figures that the existing FPTP system demonstrates a total lack of balance and equality. A reliance on a totally antiquated majority vote system perpetuating a sterile, two party monopoly that scaremongers a public paranoia in that they and they alone can be the only “stable” guardians and protectors, but one that also flies in the face of a diverse, progressive and expansive 21st Century nation.

The total disenfranchisement of the 8 million or so people who voted for the Lib Dems and UKIP and their right to a fair and reflective representation in parliament is a product of this.

[Sgt Pepper]

For My Daughter..

[Sgt Pepper]

74 – 75

[Sgt Pepper]

Well, among those present at a fundraising dinner yesterday evening was yours truly and his old lecturer in politics. Naturally the situation across the pond came up. A erm.. thrilling conversation ensued.. with regard to what the British people got, or are maybe getting?

Points were traded, including these perspectives..
It would seem the X Factor darling of debate Nick Clegg and his party LOST seats.
Yet, first out of the blocks yesterday morning with what some may observe as being rather alarming arrogance, Mr Clegg broke accepted protocol to rub up against Conservative Party legs, choosing to court Mr. Cameron on the basis of national interest and the Tories having won the most votes.
Would such “National Interest” here be in fact masking what is essentially a disappointing Lib Dem result with a pre-emptive offer to be Kingmakers? A perfect example of opportunistic political deflection? It’s already fair to say that not many people are talking about Liberal seat losses, but more about who’s going to get into bed with them.
Seizing partial power be it from a (unlikely) formal coalition or an (more likely) “agreement” to back a minority Conservative administration?
A rather ironic scenario being disproportionate power brokers considering their electoral reform stance?
Or is this the kind of thing PR stands for?
I believe it does, but in an official, accountable coalition capacity.

So, would any potentially watered down “agreement” entertain Lib Dem manifesto “Musts” such as electoral reform, defence cuts, amnesty for illegal immigrants and refusal to grant tax cuts to the better off?
Would the likes of Vince Cable or David Laws countenance the proposed Tory policy of cutting inheritance tax for the more wealthy in society or putting the squeeze on education funding?
Would the “informal nature” of such a pact and no official coalition or joint program for government mean none of the more obstinate obstacles with regard to differing policy be an issue? Together with a jobs for the boys carrot dangled as intimated by William Hague yesterday?

As those who have had the misfortune to follow my posts on the election know, I have said that I feel coalition government is very much the way forward for the culturally diverse Britain that exists today. Forget the apocalyptic rants of the cigar chewing “city” suits on the likes of Sky News. A democratic government and it’s system adapts to the needs and wishes of it’s people, not the other way around. People bemoaning some perceived indecisive nature of a formal, cohesive majority coalition program for government are the gawping dinosaurs that brought about and indeed perpetuate many of the national and global woes experienced this very day. With such a collaboration, I believe electoral reform comes almost naturally, and here’s hoping it will focus on the urgent need for a PR system in the UK.

Some of the smarming witnessed since the result would seem to point towards some form of illicit agreement.
Let’s hope this is not the case.. as it’s quite clear the British people did not vote for this. Contrary to some of the media slush being shovelled at the mo, the voters have been rather decisive in sending the message that electoral reform is the way forward, that the days of a yo-yo-ing two tier political party monopoly are at an end. That “decisive” governance should not presuppose a single ethos romping home every time in a “one in-one out” fashion. That an all inclusive, modern maturity reflected in the British electoral system is imperative.

Some related points..
I was very upset to hear that Peter Robinson lost his seat in Northern Ireland. A huge story. What a torrid year this man is having? One hopes this hasn’t too cataclysmic an effect of the fragile devolved Northern Irish administration where personality and trust plays such an immense part in the peace established there.

On the subject of Northern Ireland, no Tory seats. Scotland, one single Tory seat. Wales, 8 Tory seats.
So almost ALL of the Conservative’s 306 or so seats have come in England. Yet this very day they seek what they see as a justifiable mandate to govern the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Granted.. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own devolved parliaments (the latter with it’s own set of peculiarities more complex than the other two put together), but this was a Westminster election remember. A British election.
Would it be fair to say that the largest party in the UK courts a curious contradiction in that it has little, if any, appeal to three of it’s four component countries?

Another day’s argument perhaps..

[Sgt Pepper]

We have the SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE system of Proportional Representation here in Ireland, and as stated in the above explanatory link I truly believe it to be the fairest of all democratic voting systems in that it ” provides proportionality by transferring votes to minimise waste, and therefore also minimises the number of unrepresented or disenfranchised voters”.

No democratic system is perfect.. but I believe this to be the least imperfect :roll:

http://www.stvaction.org.uk/

[Sgt Pepper]

May 5th 1981.

Death of Bobby Sands

[Sgt Pepper]

To a beautiful lass, fellow film buff and culture vulture… a wonderfully witty, clever and engaging woman.. and always a joy to see and chat to in the wacky world of JC.

I hope you had a wonderful birthday Sexyvonne :wink: x
Your friend.. Sgt :)

[Sgt Pepper]

APRIL 24th 1916

THE EASTER RISING

The Easter Rising (Irish: Éirí Amach na Casca) was an insurrection staged in Ireland during Easter Week, 1916. The Rising was mounted by Irish republicans with the aims of ending British rule in Ireland and establishing the Irish Republic. It was the most significant uprising in Ireland since the rebellion of 1798.

Organised by the Military Council of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, the Rising lasted from Easter Monday 24 April to 30 April 1916. Members of the Irish Volunteers, led by schoolteacher and barrister Patrick Pearse, joined by the smaller Irish Citizen Army of James Connolly, along with 200 members of Cumann na mBan, seized key locations in Dublin and proclaimed the Irish Republic independent of Britain. There were some actions in other parts of Ireland but, except for the attack on the RIC barracks at Ashbourne, County Meath, they were minor.

The Rising was suppressed after seven days of fighting, and its leaders were court-martialled and executed, but it succeeded in bringing physical force republicanism back to the forefront of Irish politics. In the 1918 General Election to the British Parliament, republicans (then represented by the Sinn Féin party) won 73 seats out of 105 on a policy of abstentionism and Irish independence. This came less than two years after the Rising. In January 1919, the elected members of Sinn Féin who were not still in prison at the time, including survivors of the Rising, convened the First Dail and established the Irish Republic. The British Government refused to accept the legitimacy of the newly declared nation, precipitating the Irish War of Independence.

[Sgt Pepper]

Rock On..
Black People versus the .. erm.. N word 8-[

[Author]

Posts