Subject: Proportional Representation
Posted by: poneke
Date: May 09 10
Just so jonnowales and myself don't derail the thread on the Greek Tragedy:-)
FPP: First Past the Post.
A quick exercise: Take a piece of A4 paper. Draw a cross, making 4 boxes. Number each box 1-4.
Box 1: A)25,000. B)20,000. C)10,000. D)5,000.
Box 2: A)10,000. B)10,000. C)25,000. D)10,000.
Box 3: A)30,000. B)28,000. C)25,000. D)10,000.
Box 4: A)5,000. B)30,000. C)28,000. D)25,000.
Still with me? Good:-)
Let's *all look carefully* at these results.
Political party 'A' would win the most seats. Factored out over a population, Party 'A' would be most likely to enter Parliament and form the Govt. "The people have spoken, ra ra ra"
While they may have won the most seats, do they have the most votes? Or, when offered a real choice, did *more* people vote against them, than for them?
Under my example FPP results:(B)89,000,(C)88,000,(D)50,000 = a total of 227,000 people exercised their democratic right to vote; yet they are 'ruled' by the minority 70,000. Who then claim the majority voice?!
227,000 disenfranchised voters now join the 35-40% of people who didn't even bother voting(?!?), don't see any point in participating in free&safe elections. And not represented in Parliament, never mind Govt.
Look how many new countries have appeared over the last 30-50 years or so. Especially with the break-up of USSR. What systems of 'Democracy' will evolve? Surely we can't expect them to take FPP seriously. One man, one vote gives power to the people? I think not.
Again, we're a global community.The internet is a powerful force (ask Iran and China!) Come and share the good and the bad of how your 'system of democracy' works. It's ideas that shape the world we share:-)
Posted by: poneke
Date: May 09 10
Just so jonnowales and myself don't derail the thread on the Greek Tragedy:-)
FPP: First Past the Post.
A quick exercise: Take a piece of A4 paper. Draw a cross, making 4 boxes. Number each box 1-4.
Box 1: A)25,000. B)20,000. C)10,000. D)5,000.
Box 2: A)10,000. B)10,000. C)25,000. D)10,000.
Box 3: A)30,000. B)28,000. C)25,000. D)10,000.
Box 4: A)5,000. B)30,000. C)28,000. D)25,000.
Still with me? Good:-)
Let's *all look carefully* at these results.
Political party 'A' would win the most seats. Factored out over a population, Party 'A' would be most likely to enter Parliament and form the Govt. "The people have spoken, ra ra ra"
While they may have won the most seats, do they have the most votes? Or, when offered a real choice, did *more* people vote against them, than for them?
Under my example FPP results:(B)89,000,(C)88,000,(D)50,000 = a total of 227,000 people exercised their democratic right to vote; yet they are 'ruled' by the minority 70,000. Who then claim the majority voice?!
227,000 disenfranchised voters now join the 35-40% of people who didn't even bother voting(?!?), don't see any point in participating in free&safe elections. And not represented in Parliament, never mind Govt.
Look how many new countries have appeared over the last 30-50 years or so. Especially with the break-up of USSR. What systems of 'Democracy' will evolve? Surely we can't expect them to take FPP seriously. One man, one vote gives power to the people? I think not.
Again, we're a global community.The internet is a powerful force (ask Iran and China!) Come and share the good and the bad of how your 'system of democracy' works. It's ideas that shape the world we share:-)
22 replies. On page 1 of 2 pages. 1 2
poneke
|
If there is a God in Heaven, please let my math be correct! Reply #1. May 09 10, 5:31 PM |
redwaldo 
|
I quite like the German system,where there's a 5% rule.The Australian system of preferential voting is also more 'democratic' than the British 'first past the post' system'. Reply #2. May 09 10, 5:42 PM |
REDVIKING57
|
'Correct Math'? My brain hurts! I get lost with any number greater than 42 - see 'Deep Thought/Douglas Adams'. :)) Reply #3. May 09 10, 6:14 PM |
| poneke
|
RED;Typical ManU supporter! Red, A lifetime ago my history teacher used this exercise to demonstrate how our then-system worked, and compared it to the German model. When I left school and took part in my first election, I collated the election result data myself....and was DISGUSTED! I was one of hundreds of thousands of Kiwis with no representation! Worse - there were more of 'us' than 'them' that had elected the Govt into power! It just didn't seem right....then or now. If the current UK election were filtered through a proportional system; then results would look more like this:(Ball-park figures, for ease of reference) Conservatives:250 seats Labour:220 seats Lib Dems:160 seats. Quite a difference! ( I left out the Greens to keep jonnowales interested, lol) 'Tail wagging the dog' media hype? Reality shows, not true. Minor parties act as a 'brake' on the more extreme policy objectives of the major parties. FPP electoral systems entrench the 'Tyranny of the minority' method of democracy. They are usually favoured by the rich. No surprises why. Reply #4. May 09 10, 6:51 PM |
| redwaldo
|
As Guy Fawkes knew, you STILL get politicians who FORGET who elected them! Reply #5. May 09 10, 7:02 PM |
Christinap
|
So does this mean that if we moved to PR instead of first past the post then every time we would get a hung parliament and the sort of situation we have now? because if so I think I'm against it. Right now we need strong stable government to deal with the deficit, not seedy deals in back rooms and horse trading for every piece of necessary legislation. Reply #6. May 10 10, 4:44 PM |
| poneke
|
Christinap, did you do the A4 paper exercise? Because what you have now was caused by FPP. Look at the numbers, are you sure you're happy with this system being called 'democratic'? Does it really reflect your values of fairness? Horse-trading? That's media-speak....look and think beyond it. The deficit is Global; no quick-fixes from magic words there. Strong and stable Govt. can be formed through coalition. But, under Proportional Representation their has to be a change in attitude from the elected reps. They *must* negotiate and compromise; just like the rest of us have to in our daily lives. Seedy deals in back-rooms. How many Multi-Nationals conduct their daily business in exactly this way? Tobacco, Booze, Guns, Pharmaceuticals...look how powerful they are. Look what their 'products' do in our societies and at how powerful they are at silencing opposition. Do you feel safe walking the streets at night? Public-funded infrastructure and assets have been sold off to private companies, under FPP. Lobbyists will always exist, whether the system is FPP or Proportional. But at least with Proportional Representation it's harder for them to hide in the back-room,and easier for us to see their anti-democratic agendas. Reply #7. May 10 10, 5:36 PM |
| poneke
|
"... seedy deals in back rooms and horse trading for every piece of necessary legislation." Oh, and a coalition Govt is only able to be formed from the members of Parliament whose Parties can agree to sign off on confidence and supply legislation. It's a pre-condition for the forming of a Govt. Reply #8. May 10 10, 5:41 PM |
lesley153
|
Someone with time and a brain has worked out that PR would give UKIP 20 seats and the BNP 12 seats in Parliament. Reply #9. May 10 10, 6:55 PM |
| poneke
|
I'd like to know which method of voting under Proportional Representation would give the BNP seats. Under the MMP system of Proportional Rep they would have no Parliamentary seats as they would have failed to gain the minimum of one electoral seat and 5% party vote. Reply #10. May 10 10, 7:07 PM |
jonnowales
|
Under the proposal of a minimum of 5% of the electorate required to take seats, 11.9% of the British electorate would have been even more disenfranchised being represented with even less "Others" seats than now. What happens in Northern Ireland? The constituencies of DUP and Sinn Fein would have to merge, the political and social consequences could be bad. SNP could face a reduction in seats, would that lead to stronger calls to be released from the Union, taking with it all of its North Sea Oil reserves which see the country put in a disproportionate amount of money to the Union compared to what it gets back? Will places like Na h-Eileanan an Iar as well as Orkney & Shetland have to merge with mainland constituencies? How will one MP be able to cope with an area as monstrous as Orkney, Shetland and say Banff and Buchan? Would the result be that Orkney and Shetland, where Jo Grimond served, no longer remain a Lib Dem seat because of the bias in favour of the more highly populated SNP-represented Banff? Why should the DUP, Sinn Fein, SNP, PC not get a chance to earn extra MPs under the list system? They will NEVER get 5% of the vote. If we had a system which incorporated a party list then our constituencies would get bigger. I am quite happy with the size of my constituency - I don't want to lose our little region with its mix of suburban, industrial and rural concerns. If the constituency of Neath (where I live) was inflated to account for the party list of unaccountables, we would likely be enveloped by the City of Swansea. The cities already get such a massive say in the way this country is run - could the little towns like Neath keep its say - thank you! I will never be convinced that party lists are the right way to go - we already have it in Wales and I don't like what I see. If you are at the top of a major party's list then you are accountable to noone and unlikely to be booted out at the next election. What I admire about our electoral system can be summed up by what happened in Redditch last Thursday. Jacqui Smith, whose husband bought pornographic movies at the expense of the tax payer, fiddled her expenses with regards the location of her home and she was ousted by the electorate of that constituency...bye, bye Jacqui. Redditch gave you a chance to make a good go of things, you didn't, and now those same people are taking it away. What is to say that Jacqui, and other politicians like her, wouldn't be put on to this safe list. Our politicians are not exactly known for their reliability. I'm with ChristinaP - don't like it and don't want it. I don't like the power that Nick Clegg has right now and under PR he would have it all the time. Third place is third place...to the victor the spoils and all that. EVERY party has a chance to win EVERY seat that it contests - I shall leave it at that. :) Reply #11. May 11 10, 3:54 AM |
C30
|
Only once in living memory, has a Government put the good of the country before Party Politics, and that was during WW2 when they damn well HAD to! Irrespective of format used to determine election results, the whole lot are more interested in scoring "brownie points" than in running the country. In my less than humble opinion, the whole system could do with a massive "shake up", however those who can, won't and those who would, can't. So...........Tory majority, Labour Majority, Hung Parliment...........same meat, different gravy! Reply #12. May 11 10, 8:42 AM |
| Christinap
|
Define Proportional Representation. As I understand it there is more than one PR system, each of which would produce a different result. Reply #13. May 14 10, 5:32 PM |
| poneke
|
In reply to Robin from another thread and hopefully answer you too christinap :-). Under FPP we had one vote to choose from the two parties who tend to dominate W'rn democracies: Labour/Left and National/Tories. We voted for somebody to represent our electorate in Parliament. Who ever got the most electorate seats formed the Government. There's only one house in the NZ Parliament. This system grew 'organically' from the Westminister system we inherited from England. W're currently still a part of the British Commonwealth.{Queenie gets Air-Miles and B&B on us :-)} This started to go faulty when the money driving both engines was coming from the same wallet. Took a few years for Kiwis to catch on, and when we did we opted to try something different.Different behaviour=Different outcome, right? Sounds simple enough, but it really was a monumental battle that took years to achieve. We settled on changing our ways to MMP(I had a 6th form history teacher who was really into this stuff and broke it down well) The key difference now is, we get two votes: we still vote for our local electorate representative, but the 2nd vote is for us to choose which political party we want in Parliament. So we call them: our party vote, and our electoral vote. There are 120 seats in PArliament,70 electorate seats and the rest are allocated from the party vote results. Important numbers for NZ's MMP: 5% minimum of the total share of the party vote OR 1 electoral seat = you are "in the house!" With MMP in NZ there are currently 7 political parties represented in Parliament.Coalition Government is the expected norm. The current coalition Government is made up of 3 parties.Now spin doctors from the traditional left and right fight over the word 'centrist' Pfffft! As if we didn't know they're the blimmin same under the surface. Here's the flaw that has emerged: The political party called NZFirst isn't there because of a flaw that needs tweaking in our system(No bias, didn't vote for them). It got a higher % of the party vote than the Act Party, but no electoral seat, yet it hasn't got any seats in PArliament.The Act Party Leader Rodney Hide, won his electoral seat, so their party vote has to be factored in when divving up the party-vote seats. The Act Party is one of the two parties John Key made a deal with to form his National-led coalition Govt. The other is the Maori Party....so that's some strange pillow-talk going on DownUnder indeed! Reply #14. Sep 03 10, 5:52 AM |
| poneke
|
For example: If the current results in Oz had been proportional, then the OZ Green Party - (Who got proportionally more votes than NZ's 9 Green Members of Parliament, currently sitting in opposition) - would have had more seats, formed a Govt and negated the impact of a couple of independants, meaning Cym wouldn't have had to wait for over two weeks to get a result;-) Reply #15. Sep 03 10, 6:02 AM |
REDVIKING57
|
Wish I was Greek. I might understand it then. Reply #16. Sep 03 10, 6:49 AM |
Cymruambyth
|
It seems to me that it doesn't really matter what the voting system is, we still end up with governments made up of politicians - and today's politicians are much more self-serving than politicians of 100, 50, or even 25 years ago. There was a time when people entered the political arena intent on service, not self-service. I find that fewer and fewer politicians are that idealistic any more. Reply #17. Sep 03 10, 10:10 AM |
| REDVIKING57
|
Agreed,Cym! I think,in the UK, there is a marked difference after 1979. And I don't just mean the Thatcher Gang - but all parties. Reply #18. Sep 03 10, 11:30 AM |
| lesley153
|
"I find that fewer and fewer politicians are that idealistic any more." This is probably a dreadful thing to ask but - were they ever? Reply #19. Sep 03 10, 12:11 PM |
tobyone
|
"Oz Green Party....would have formed government". Stuff of nightmares, poneke. You'd need to be prepared for an influx of Aussies, all claiming economic refugee status. Reply #20. Sep 03 10, 2:47 PM |
22 replies. On page 1 of 2 pages. 1 2
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: