No need to change?

[caddyman]

Today's Poll of Polls (the survey that statistically combines all other surveys, if you need telling), breaks down party support thus:

Conservative 33%
Labour 28%
Liberal Democrats 29%
Other 10%

This translates to the following representation in Parliament:

Conservative 247 seats
Labour 280 seats
Liberal Democrats 94 seats
Other 29 seats.

That means that if we had the election today, there would be a hung parliament and that Labour, despite polling third, would be the largest party. The most popular party would come second and the second most popular, polling 1% more than Labour would come a distant third.

If ever there was a demonstration of just how unrepresentative our 'representative democracy' is, there's your evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm

Comments

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

It may seem unfair, but how fair really is it if we were to end up with a hung parliament, and tiny little upstart parties with relatively small percentages of the vote exert an influence and power waaaaay above thier weight? I can understand why upstart parties like the Lib Dems will complain bitterly. But hang on a minute - if they are so damn good, and have such strong policies, and they can convince enough people - they can win via "first past the post" - it may be a little harder, but not impossible.

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

What bald faced game rigging bull do you mean? There is the Lib Dem version - i.e. We can't win by First Past the Post - so let's rig another sort of game rigging bull i.e. let's pretend that the other main parties are rubbish and we are somewhat "different". Lib Dems are absolutely no different in being just as dishonest and manipulative as any other political party. They are IMO the worst. Where they reek most is that odour of sanctity they spray on themselves. I would respect them if they could at least articulate their position on how they would handle a hung parliament honestly and clearly. I suspect Lib Dems would actually relish a hung parliament and being the kingmakers - but Clegg keeps on being evasive about that, as well as being deliberately opaque on they would consider to be a "strong mandate" - the largest number of seats won or the largest percentage of the votes.

I supported New Labour in 1997 (although for tactical reasons, I didn't vote for them at the time). They won by a landslide in a FPTP election system. What's your point?

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

There's nothing to be more "afraid" of than people's inordinate ability to be fooled by politicians.

I'm not afraid of the unlikely event of a Lib Dem win, nor a hung parliament for that matter. If it came about it would be on the basis of the prevailing FPTP system - which I happen to quite happy with. It's my democratic right to go along with that. But - let's put that to the people. I'm all for a referendum to decide on a different system.

And if we are to take any of your accusations seriously, your's is a frivolous reason for "defending" the Lib Dems - based on the motives that you assign my comments i.e "seem to be attacking them for having done well in other peoples' eyes". Well "seem to be" is a good cover, because I have consistently attacked the Lib Dems ever since I got to know their absurd policies and ideology, especially on the Iraq war.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

C'mon chaps, play nice.

It's okay to disagree!

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

"It's okay to disagree!" I know that. Can't speak for others though. ;-)

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

I am less worried about who wins the election (though I have my preferences) than how they win the election. Essentially, the system we have of sending an elected representative to Parliament evolved and worked properly before the party system evolved. The electorate (such as it was) was represented by someopne who would look out for local concerns.

Over the centuries, the electorate has increased as the franchise has widened (and rightly so), but parties have evolved and we now vote for the party rather than the individual (with occasional exceptions). That means that the local link is less important than in theory it ought to be; it is the National party that counts, not the local upon which first past the post essentially rests.

This means that whilst the MP for each area has a local majority, it has nothing to do with that MP unless he/she makes a specatacular gaffe or outstanding contribution and all to do with the Natioanla party machine.

This means then, that Nationwide a party can command widespread support that is not reflected locally and whilst polling a spectacular percentage of the National vote, get few seats in return.

It applies most starkly to the Lib Dems right now, but the principle is simple: if we are voting for National parties expounding National policies, the National will should prevail. If we are voting for local personalities on local issues, the local will should prevail - as often it does, hence a large number of Lib Dem councils but few MPs. The local-local criterion works, the local-National doesn't.

It is simply wrong, in my opinion in 21st century society, that an election where one party commands the support of 29% of the electorate can expect to gain 14% of the seats, while another party that has 28% support can gain 43% of the seats.

Democracy is the rule of the people. Coming top in an election, when placed third in the popular vote is simply not the rule of the people, therefore it is not democracy.

One of the reasons, I suspect, that fewer and fewer people vote. They don't think their vote will count and I submit that the figures support that belief.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Sod it, I am copying that and posting it as a new thread!

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Natch!


He says modestly. ;-D

[kathbad]

Can I repost this? I could rewrite, but it would be so similar that it makes more sense to repost and credit!

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Of course you can repost it! ;-)

[kathbad]

Thank you.