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

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...?

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

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...?