Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 11:23:42 GMT
Not at all. I don't need to win the argument to be a happy person. I don't think I was losing the argument. We win so many more elections than you that 'the argument' hardly matters. I did not intend that to be 'a dig' at you but a valid observation of your world view which seems so remorselessly narrow, negative and downbeat. We view the world in rather different ways and we are both unlikely to change that stance. Does your view make you happy and fulfilled? Are you making a difference? If not perhaps a re-think is a possibility? I don't treat the electorate like idiots, which you seem to do. "Oh they don't even think before voting!". It is only thanks to PR that your party is returning to the local councils of Scotland so please rethink your blinkered "We're winning, you're not" yaa-boo attitude. I don't think it's fair to say that we are "only" returning to local councils because of PR; it benefits us in the Central Belt of course; but if you look at the map of first preferences; the North East and the Southern Uplands are a sea of blue, which suggests we could still have won these areas in a FPTP system. It is indisputably the Liberal Democrats who are the largest beneficiaries of PR; without which they would probably be wiped out at a local level outside of Highland and their other isolated strongholds. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on May 29, 2018 11:39:35 GMT
There should be no one-party councils, there should be no landslide elections, there should be no yes-vs-no: there must be proportional representation. Like in Scotland you mean?  |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 29, 2018 12:10:24 GMT
So you demand we have a less democratic system to make you more popular. What on Earth makes you think that a system where the number of seats a party gets is roughly proportional to the number of votes it gets is "less democratic" than one where the number of seats it gets bears very little relation to the number of votes it gets? And what on Earth makes you think that arguments for PR are about making the smaller parties "more popular", when what is actually being argued is that the number of seats a party gets should be an accurate reflection of how popular they actually are? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 29, 2018 12:20:54 GMT
So you demand we have a less democratic system to make you more popular. What on Earth makes you think that a system where the number of seats a party gets is roughly proportional to the number of votes it gets is "less democratic" than one where the number of seats it gets bears very little relation to the number of votes it gets? And what on Earth makes you think that arguments for PR are about making the smaller parties "more popular", when what is actually being argued is that the number of seats a party gets should be an accurate reflection of how popular they actually are? You chaps damage your cases by letting hyperbole run away with you. "...where the number of seats bears very little relation to the number of votes it gets..." WRONG! It always bears a full relationship to the fact that the winner gets MORE votes and that is how they win. How dim can you get. The runner-up fails to win. The answer to this is very simple. Win more votes or shut the fuck up. Your choice. In a race the winner wins by an extreme edge or a massive distance. That makes no difference to the winner or to the loser. It's about winning. If you keep on piling up huge numbers of seconds and thirds improve or shut up. Ward by ward and constituency by constituency you continue to prove the sore fact that usually you just can't cut it. So being sore losers and not able to persuade the great British public to support you in greater numbers in more places......You want the rules changed to facilitate more wins for your poxy party. No. Piss Off. Not happening. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,599 
|
Post by cibwr on May 29, 2018 12:27:14 GMT
In a multi party system FPTP is a lottery and not an election. Where you have people "winning" on less than 30% of the votes cast it can't be said to be very democratic - and certainly does not represent the will of the people of that constituency.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 12:27:18 GMT
FPTP is not intended to reflect the overall proportion of votes at a national level. It is intended to provide local representation which is acceptable to a plurality of electors within a given constituency. In this sense it is representative. All other systems just muddy the waters in regard to accountability and a direct link between the electorate and their representative. Look at some of the dross that gets elected to the devolved Parliaments/Assemblies on the regional list for examples of what happens when this link is blurred.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 29, 2018 12:30:58 GMT
What on Earth makes you think that a system where the number of seats a party gets is roughly proportional to the number of votes it gets is "less democratic" than one where the number of seats it gets bears very little relation to the number of votes it gets? And what on Earth makes you think that arguments for PR are about making the smaller parties "more popular", when what is actually being argued is that the number of seats a party gets should be an accurate reflection of how popular they actually are? You chaps damage your cases by letting hyperbole run away with you. "...where the number of seats bears very little relation to the number of votes it gets..." WRONG! It always bears a full relationship to the fact that the winner gets MORE votes and that is how they win. How dim can you get. The runner-up fails to win. I refer you to the 1951 General Election, where the winner got FEWER votes than the runner up. FPTP does NOT consistently deliver the outcome you claim for it. You complain that my pointing out the flaws in your argument is "letting hyperbole run away with you", and then - in the very same post - come up with this example of runaway hyperbole. That's amusing. Democracy is supposed to be about ensuring that the make-up of the government reflects the views of the people. In a representative democracy, that means that it reflects whatever votes the public chooses to cast. It's not a race, it's an exercise in interpreting the will of the people. And, of course, your previous party quite clearly demonstrated that under FPTP winning over a much, much greater number of voters in a great many more places does not necessarily give you any more seats. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 29, 2018 12:40:44 GMT
GC
Go on then list the actual hyperbole in my post. There is none!
1951. Yes, remember it in the playground of my primary school and being outnumbered as a near sole Conservative.
You are quite wrong of course about the result because you perversely pretend that there was one national constituency, whereas they were multiple constituencies where the Conservatives won more seats than the Labour party. That is how it works constituency by constituency. It is fully locally democratic. It works. there is no problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 29, 2018 12:58:06 GMT
GC Go on then list the actual hyperbole in my post. There is none! I did in my previous post. Perhaps you could list the alleged hyperbole in my post. Except that elections are not, in fact, a series of independent contests to elect a local representative. They are seen by the overwhelming majority of the electorate as a means of electing a national parliament. And the messaging of pretty much all of the political parties fits in with this narrative, as does the way both mainstream and social media cover elections. There's nothing perverse about recognising that elections have been far more of a national contest than a series of independent/unrelated local ones for far longer than any of of us have been alive. FPTP is not intended to reflect the overall proportion of votes at a national level. It is intended to provide local representation which is acceptable to a plurality of electors within a given constituency. In this sense it is representative. All other systems just muddy the waters in regard to accountability and a direct link between the electorate and their representative. Look at some of the dross that gets elected to the devolved Parliaments/Assemblies on the regional list for examples of what happens when this link is blurred. I refer you to the dross that gets elected to local councils and Westminster under FPTP as evidence that FPTP does not provide accountability in practice. It would be interesting to have some statistics on the number of people who can actually name their MP - I doubt that it would be as high as 50% in the majority of constituencies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 13:04:11 GMT
GC Go on then list the actual hyperbole in my post. There is none! I did in my previous post. Perhaps you could list the alleged hyperbole in my post. Except that elections are not, in fact, a series of independent contests to elect a local representative. They are seen by the overwhelming majority of the electorate as a means of electing a national parliament. And the messaging of pretty much all of the political parties fits in with this narrative, as does the way both mainstream and social media cover elections. There's nothing perverse about recognising that elections have been far more of a national contest than a series of independent/unrelated local ones for far longer than any of of us have been alive. FPTP is not intended to reflect the overall proportion of votes at a national level. It is intended to provide local representation which is acceptable to a plurality of electors within a given constituency. In this sense it is representative. All other systems just muddy the waters in regard to accountability and a direct link between the electorate and their representative. Look at some of the dross that gets elected to the devolved Parliaments/Assemblies on the regional list for examples of what happens when this link is blurred. I refer you to the dross that gets elected to local councils and Westminster under FPTP as evidence that FPTP does not provide accountability in practice. It would be interesting to have some statistics on the number of people who can actually name their MP - I doubt that it would be as high as 50% in the majority of constituencies. It is far easier for the electorate to sack a bad representative at a Westminster level than on the Regional List. Their names don’t even appear on the ballot! I suspect the numbers of people who can name their List MSPs (I’ll use Scotland for my examples since I’m Scottish) are even lower. Most people go to their constituency MSP if they have a problem. Most of my own List MSPs are utterly invisible and only show up at election time. Furthermore, in some cases it stifles independent thought and encourages blind party loyalty. Look at how the SNP effectively deselected Margo Macdonald because she didn't toe the party line. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 14:37:19 GMT
It really is a problem when, constituency by constituency, candidates with under 35% of the vote are "winning", making their choice less popular than all other options combined. That's not winning: that's merely being in the lead, and there's a difference. Landslide victories in ultra safe constituencies is winning: splitting the ballot paper 4 ways in a tight suburban marginal is only being in the lead through mathematics.
A system of PR, used in almost every country in the world and for the London Assembly, provides for results which match as far as possible the will of the wider electorate. FPTP means that only a few hundred people in marginal constituencies really matter, nobody else does.
This country needs a great big red reset button switching on: votes at 16, PR at local, county and national level, improved local councils with teeth, an elected second chamber: so much could be done to drag this sad little moany island into the 21st century. I hope beyond hope that it happens.
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on May 29, 2018 15:03:33 GMT
I did in my previous post. Perhaps you could list the alleged hyperbole in my post. Except that elections are not, in fact, a series of independent contests to elect a local representative. They are seen by the overwhelming majority of the electorate as a means of electing a national parliament. And the messaging of pretty much all of the political parties fits in with this narrative, as does the way both mainstream and social media cover elections. There's nothing perverse about recognising that elections have been far more of a national contest than a series of independent/unrelated local ones for far longer than any of of us have been alive. I refer you to the dross that gets elected to local councils and Westminster under FPTP as evidence that FPTP does not provide accountability in practice. It would be interesting to have some statistics on the number of people who can actually name their MP - I doubt that it would be as high as 50% in the majority of constituencies. It is far easier for the electorate to sack a bad representative at a Westminster level than on the Regional List. Their names don’t even appear on the ballot! I suspect the numbers of people who can name their List MSPs (I’ll use Scotland for my examples since I’m Scottish) are even lower. Most people go to their constituency MSP if they have a problem. Most of my own List MSPs are utterly invisible and only show up at election time. Furthermore, in some cases it stifles independent thought and encourages blind party loyalty. Look at how the SNP effectively deselected Margo Macdonald because she didn't toe the party line. This is why list systems generally suck donkey dick. The *only* acceptable form of list-based PR would be a top-up system whereby the 'list' is automatically comprised of the highest polling non winning candidates across all seats. This way only those who electors actually wanted in significant numbers would benefit rather than those arbitrarily imposed by party hierarchy. There is a degree of legitimacy in losing with 45% of the vote and this system would reflect this. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on May 29, 2018 15:05:46 GMT
It really is a problem when, constituency by constituency, candidates with under 35% of the vote are "winning", making their choice less popular than all other options combined. That's not winning: that's merely being in the lead, and there's a difference. Landslide victories in ultra safe constituencies is winning: splitting the ballot paper 4 ways in a tight suburban marginal is only being in the lead through mathematics. A system of PR, used in almost every country in the world and for the London Assembly, provides for results which match as far as possible the will of the wider electorate. FPTP means that only a few hundred people in marginal constituencies really matter, nobody else does. This country needs a great big red reset button switching on: votes at 16, PR at local, county and national level, improved local councils with teeth, an elected second chamber: so much could be done to drag this sad little moany island into the 21st century. I hope beyond hope that it happens. I really hope it doesn't happen. Many of us would pretty much lose all interest in politics. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 15:12:20 GMT
It really is a problem when, constituency by constituency, candidates with under 35% of the vote are "winning", making their choice less popular than all other options combined. That's not winning: that's merely being in the lead, and there's a difference. Landslide victories in ultra safe constituencies is winning: splitting the ballot paper 4 ways in a tight suburban marginal is only being in the lead through mathematics. A system of PR, used in almost every country in the world and for the London Assembly, provides for results which match as far as possible the will of the wider electorate. FPTP means that only a few hundred people in marginal constituencies really matter, nobody else does. This country needs a great big red reset button switching on: votes at 16, PR at local, county and national level, improved local councils with teeth, an elected second chamber: so much could be done to drag this sad little moany island into the 21st century. I hope beyond hope that it happens. I really hope it doesn't happen. Many of us would pretty much lose all interest in politics. A voting system change would put you off politics? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 15:23:19 GMT
I really hope it doesn't happen. Many of us would pretty much lose all interest in politics. A voting system change would put you off politics? I suspect I would feel the same, PR elections are mind numbingly dull. I also find it somewhat amusing that you describe our country as a “sad, moany little island” when you spend most of your time on this site whinging about Brexit. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on May 29, 2018 15:28:03 GMT
I really hope it doesn't happen. Many of us would pretty much lose all interest in politics. A voting system change would put you off politics?
Definitely.
I already take far less interest in Euro, Holyrood, London Assembly elections etc. with their silly systems. It's just not as exciting or interesting or immediate or, well, fun.
And it's not just the psephology. Actual legislation and policy would be dumbed-down to a point of unrecognisability in an unending succession of wussy coalitions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 15:41:08 GMT
A voting system change would put you off politics? Definitely. I already take far less interest in Euro, Holyrood, London Assembly elections etc. with their silly systems. It's just not as exciting or interesting or immediate or, well, fun. And it's not just the psephology. Actual legislation and policy would be dumbed-down to a point of unrecognisability in an unending succession of wussy coalitions.
I'm sorry, but what utter rubbish. Holyrood elections have FPTP constituencies in addition to proportional top-ups. I've watched Irish election result programmes, there's excitement in each round of counting. There's valid reasons for not accepting proportional voting systems: 'fun' isn't one of them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 16:36:12 GMT
Definitely. I already take far less interest in Euro, Holyrood, London Assembly elections etc. with their silly systems. It's just not as exciting or interesting or immediate or, well, fun. And it's not just the psephology. Actual legislation and policy would be dumbed-down to a point of unrecognisability in an unending succession of wussy coalitions.
I'm sorry, but what utter rubbish. Holyrood elections have FPTP constituencies in addition to proportional top-ups. I've watched Irish election result programmes, there's excitement in each round of counting. There's valid reasons for not accepting proportional voting systems: 'fun' isn't one of them. Perhaps not, but if it's enough to disengage members of this site what will it do the general public? People are already politically disengaged enough as it is, we shouldn't be encouraging apathy. You only need to look at the turnout differences between Westminster and Holyrood elections for example to see the problem here. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on May 29, 2018 17:22:25 GMT
This is why list systems generally suck donkey dick. The *only* acceptable form of list-based PR would be a top-up system whereby the 'list' is automatically comprised of the highest polling non winning candidates across all seats. This way only those who electors actually wanted in significant numbers would benefit rather than those arbitrarily imposed by party hierarchy. There is a degree of legitimacy in losing with 45% of the vote and this system would reflect this. We take very different positions on the whole PR question but we could conceivably make some common ground on this - I would agree that top-up list systems formed from the best of the losers has quite a lot to recommend it and I don't much like list systems designed for list system specialists - almost by definition people less keen on direct contact with their voters. Don't misunderstand me- I am coming at this from the point of view that having a government which reflects how people really want to vote trumps any other concern, and that I suspect is not where you are coming from, but the most appealing way of achieving that we can find the better. More legitimacy, less donkey dick is fine. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on May 29, 2018 17:31:29 GMT
This is why list systems generally suck donkey dick. The *only* acceptable form of list-based PR would be a top-up system whereby the 'list' is automatically comprised of the highest polling non winning candidates across all seats. This way only those who electors actually wanted in significant numbers would benefit rather than those arbitrarily imposed by party hierarchy. There is a degree of legitimacy in losing with 45% of the vote and this system would reflect this. We take very different positions on the whole PR question but we could conceivably make some common ground on this - I would agree that top-up list systems formed from the best of the losers has quite a lot to recommend it and I don't much like list systems designed for list system specialists - almost by definition people less keen on direct contact with their voters. Don't misunderstand me- I am coming at this from the point of view that having a government which reflects how people really want to vote trumps any other concern, and that I suspect is not where you are coming from, but the most appealing way of achieving that we can find the better. More legitimacy, less donkey dick is fine.
I don't think we're that far apart really. I'm actually in favour of things being more proportional - just very much against the specific voting systems currently in widespread use.
What I'd *really* like is if a FPTP election just happened to deliver a proportional outcome.
|
|
