Of the Party, by the Party, for the Party.

[caddyman]

It's a fabulous (and I use the word in its most literal sense) form of democracy that allows a party that polls 36.3% of the popular vote (on a turnout of about 58%, but that's another issue), to gain around 55% of the seats in the House of Commons.

At the time of writing, all of the Northern Ireland seats and a few of the larger rurals have yet to declare, and a few of the marginals are going through recounts, but it seems clear that we are looking at a Labour majority of about 66 - 68 seats. With these few to come in, Labour's 37% has netted them 353 seats. Meantime, trailing on 33.2% of the vote, the Conservatives manage 196 seats, and the Liberal Democrats, with 22.6% of the popular vote manage a paltry 61 seats.

So, poll 36.3% of the vote to reap 55% of the rewards; 33.2% becomes 30.3% of the available seats, and 22.6% rewards you with 17.6% of the available seats in Parliament. I'd like to see someone like Stephen Hawking come up with a unifying theory to justify (not explain - I know the explanation) precisely why this is fair. And it's not just now; it's every election, regardless of the winning party.

The First Past the Post system is fair on a local level - the most popular local candidate gets in to represent that seat, sadly the system is only truly relevant where each Parliamentary candidate is an independent, whose loyalty lies with his or her constituency, and not a nationally based political party. That, I believe is how the system grew up; it predates the modern political party. Back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, MPs were far less subject to the party wip than they are today, and the government of the day was consequently more accountable to Parliament. MPs could change their minds, vote with their consciences, and political groupings were less rigid.

It doesn't work any more.

There is still a value to the constituency MP, representing the local community on the national stage, but modern party control subsumes and swallows this by forcing the locals to follow the national line, regardless of conscience. (And yes, I know there were Labour rebels over the Iraq war, but they could afford to rebel, because they knew that a) the government majority was large enough to swallow the rebellion wholesale, and b) they knew that with one or two honourable exceptions (Mr. Cook), they had a cat in Hell's chance of landing patronage in the form of a government post from the PM. If the Iraq war had blown up with this majority, there would have been a great deal of moaning, but the party ranks would have held firm to keep the party in power. That's assuming that the PM even took the question to Parliament, since he is not obliged to do so. He only need exercise the Royal Prerogative (wielded by the Crown in Parliament, ie. the Government, NOT the Monarch) to get the job done.

It may lead to effective and workable government, but it's not even close to effective and workable democracy.

I wonder why people don't turn out to vote these days...?

Comments

[kneeshooter]

I wonder why people don't turn out to vote these days...?

I may be doing my fellow man a disservice, but I would be surprised if the majority who don't turn out to vote acted that way through well reasoned argument and consideration like that you display.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

I was hoping that the final line hinted at a drip of sarcasm... ;-)

[kneeshooter]

Ah. Don't mind me, it's been a long day (having properly started at 8am yesterday...)

[agentinfinity.livejournal.com]

Thankfully, because of the nature of the Labour party, there are enough staunch rebels that hopefully Blair will be in a position where he is accountable to parliament. You can rely on a number of individuals to always vote with their conscience. An advantage over the conservative party, as few of them have one.

Which doesn't really make up for the system, which has you say is deeply flawed. I'm just relieved that New Labour have lost their stranglehold, because their incursions into civil liberties are too alarming. If they'd got another massive majority they would just keep taking the piss like that until we had few rights and an even shoddier democracy left.

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

I'm a great believer in first past the post and in consituency politics. I am also a great believer in the House of Lords in its proper form, life peers and all. I am, however, sadly resigned to the fact that abolition reform of the House of Lords was on all three of the main party agendas for this election. Let's face it - it's going to go. If that's the case, I would suggest that the best way forward would be to have one House elected by proportional representation without any constituency ties whatsoever, and the other to remain with the existing system.

[dreamfire.livejournal.com]

oooh - do tell. I can see that people could formulate a working argument for A second non elected house - but would love to see one for Life Peers that had any grounding in anything at all other than "what a nice british tradition" or "the new ways of choosing peers are no better"

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

To me life peerages should be a very rare non-politically motivated reward for outstanding services to the country. There would, of course, be the Law Lords and probably a couple of ecclesiastical posts that would technically be life peerages, but I think that the time honoured tradition of giving former Prime Ministers a life peerage is a very good one. If someone can make such a major contributin to the country then I think it's only right that (s)he should have a say in how it is run through a seat in the upper house. And yes, even though I don't agree with his policies, I'm all in favour of Blair getting one at some appropriate point.

What I'm more in favour of is the reinstatement of the hereditary peerage, where the local Lord is raised from birth to be aware of his privilege and its associated responsibilities, and looks after his locals. If someone is educated for a job from birth, and taught that it is their duty to do the job well, no matter whether or not they want to, then it must create a more conscientous House than one where at some point(probably in their teens or twenties) individuals decided that they wanted power to further their own personal agenda? It's just a real shame that the political ambitions of the Commons has led to the continued "reform" of the Lords.

[agentinfinity.livejournal.com]

I quite like the idea of a non-elected house, but I would rather it was more of a mixture of classes, rather than solely from the upper classes. I don't see why it needs to be hereditary. We could just have people selected at random and trained up a la Chesterton's Napoleon of Notting Hill (which is dead good if you haven't read it). Or alternatively, not just people like law lords get to sit in it, but also a selection of people who've fulfilled other positions of responsibility such as ex-union leaders, academics, teachers, policepersons, etc.

Just a couple of half baked ideas. I don't have any solid ones, but I'd like a solution that wasn't voted and also respresented a good cross section of responsible persons. At the moment, keeping things as they are seems to most sensible option until someone comes up with a decent alternative that can keep the government in check. The current government have proved just how much we need a second house.

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

"not just people like law lords get to sit in it, but also a selection of people who've fulfilled other positions of responsibility such as ex-union leaders, academics, teachers, policepersons"

Absolutely - if they've made an outstanding contribution in their service to the country I entirely agree. I'd even support a move to give the likes of Scargill a position - I don't agree with his politics, but in my mind there's no doubt as to his commitment to serving the country.

[dreamfire.livejournal.com]

that is an interesting argument, and I rather think the first half might be quite valid. Unfortunately I think the second half is scuppered since Machiavelli wrote The Prince... the educators can't be trusted not to have their own egobased ends at stake

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

We could have a very long debate on constitutional reform, but right now I'm too tired to type anything out - it would be very long.

Something for another day, possibly with wine involved.

For what it's worth though, I have always felt that the Lords should either be left alone or fully reformed, not the bastardised halfway house we have now.

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

Oh, and one of the great things about constituency politics is that people in any area have "their MP" who they can write to or whatever. They know who it is that is responsible for listening to them and acting on it. If we brought in pr then that just wouldn't be the case.

[pauln.livejournal.com]

That rather depends on the particular system that's brought in. In brief, because this is something of a hobby-horse of mine and the main reason for my initial interest/involvement in politics as a teenager.

Straight national "party list" gets that, but is a no-no for that very reason.
The main possibilities are either Additional Member: Half the MPs elected on a single member constituency, half proportionally from party lists. This is what the Germans use.
Or (my preference), Single Transferable Vote, as used in this country for the European elections. Larger, multi-member constituencies. The results give reasonable proportionality, but maintain the local link (and give the added advantage that if you think one of your reps is a tosser, you can take any problems to someone else).

[cowjam.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking a lot about proportional representation, and voted lib dem because of it.

However, a new thought occurs to me - how do you start a new party when your'e in a PR system? We currently vote for a local person, so it's relatively easy to stand in your area and gain votes. But, if you have to gain a percentage, say over 10% (you don't want a threshold below that to keep out minority extremist parties), before you get to parliament you're facing a much bigger job.