Forget Germany
From the distinguished to the idiotic, Germany’s election chaos results are getting kicked to death this week by electoral system-conservatives. The anti-PR brigade are sharpening their knives with glee. But why? The German result is irrelevant to the PR debate here in the UK, for at least three reasons:
1. Look at the numbers: two blocs of 35% and three of 10%, roughly. Would any reasonable electoral system dish out a majority government based on that spread? Should it, and still be able to call itself a democracy? Paul makes a similar argument here. Anyway, I thought the complaint was that Germany’s FDP held blackmail kingmaker powers and pivoted the system around them. Now we’re complaining when they don’t. (Update: Martin shows how FPTP in Germany would have delivered the same result: the problem is divided polity, not PR.)
2. Leaving aside the odd quirk, Germany’s electoral system delivers near-perfect proportionality. 10% of the votes entitles you to 10% of Bundestag seats. The proportional part of the vote is compensatory rather than parallel, to use the jargon. But nobody serious is suggesting a perfectly proportional system for the UK. Both AV+ and the system I suggested here in June would deliver majorities on large pluralities, as would the Single Transferable Vote. The Jamaica, Grand or traffic-light games are a diverting but irrelevant sideshow for UK psephologists.
3. The “ooh, a coalition” bogeyman is just that  a bogeyman. The correct response is: “so what?” Germany’s main, stable conservative bloc is effectively a coalition. Whatever comes out of the bargaining, it won’t be an entirely new programme or set of policies, completely unmandated by voters, as PR opponents always suggest. Germany will get a marriage of two or three parties’ existing mandates, a consensus of support on a narrower agenda, perhaps with a specific time limit. It might wobble, it might not. We elect MPs as proxies. The German ones are just going to have to earn their money the hard way for a change.
A brave face, but the prognosis doesn’t seem good. I really should get around to that long-overdue post now that the PR case is looking so worn after all this.
Re (1) – ours delivered a majority; but I know you don’t thnk it should. My feeling is that PR tends to be at its weakest at times of crisis and realignment, because opinion fragments but the system only allows a plurality to govern if it is close-to-majority. (Conversely, it can provide for better moderation and policy stability once a consensus has been formed.)
Re (3), CDU-CSU is a coalition, but only in the way that the Tory Party would be if it ever had a recovery in Scotland now – it’s not that there’s any rivalry between them, and the potential for inner-party competition is no more than for Brownite versus Blairites or Wets verus Drys.
Pingback: doctorvee » PR isn’t to blame
1. Ours would have delivered a majority to Labour even if your lot had gained a larger share of the vote. So, I’m thinking it doesn’t jump the reasonable electoral system threshold… unless you think that a system that delivers a governing mandate to (1) a minority that (2) isn’t even the largest minority, is reasonable.
3. Well, I guess you think that Stoiber and Merkel are unequivocally batting for the same team, then. You’d never know it.
I know I’m not going to persuade you… But it’s possible to make your good arguments – stability, governability, continuity, ability to handle crisis – for just having a King. If we’re going to go with democracy, I take it that designing a system to elect a representative slice of the national will to parliament is the first (non-negotiable) building block.
Pingback: Martin Stabe
1. No problem with that possibility, and I say that without any irony. Them’s the rules; I want an electoral system that functions rather than adheres to
3. Hey, the Major Government had four or five different leading figures all vying for position. That’s in the nature of the parliamentary politics; it’s exacerbated by the CSU’s regional bloc, and Stoiber’s rather assertive (!) personality, but no more than that.
You could make those arguments for a King, but autocratic monarchies aren’t exactly best for stability – parliamentary government seems to be. And being representative is one of the criteria by which we should seek to evaluate our political institutions, too – for both functional and moral reasons. But it is only one of those criteria; to elevate it into an absolute principle, and seek representation above all else, seems to me a very bad idea indeed.
There’s a further point here, too: the categories through which we describe representative democracy are far from perfect. The party system’s the best example of this: on the one hand, it’s an obstacle to democratic perfection, because any party is a coalition that imperfectly reflects its’ supporters’ views; on the other hand, parties reflect our social nature, and our willingness to forge alliances.
Re (1), by the way, your argument would surely be better served by the Australian example, where the National Party are much more formally distinct from the Liberal Party, with whom they serve in coalition, under an AV system (closer to FPTP than PR).
autocratic monarchies aren’t exactly best for stability – parliamentary government seems to be
This is a curiously ahistorical argument (see here for my thoughts on the power of monarchs, parliaments and Prime Ministers). Parliamentary government wasn’t particularly stable in 1649 (annus mirabilis), or even in 1832; on the other hand, in its current degenerate state it’s remarkably stable. The question is, can stability be combined with representativeness – or is ‘stable’ another word for ‘undemocratic’?
Pingback: Ephems of BLB
B: we’re obviously never going to agree on this. I understand the need for delivering winners etc. I just don’t think FPTP passes the basic “representativeness” test, for which there has to be a floor, surely. Not if it can deliver legislative majorities to small-ish minorities, theoretically around 30-32% if projections about the UK 2005 election were right.
It’s also worth noting that turnout in Germany was 77%. We haven’t been close to that for quite some time. The fact that most UK votes “don’t count” has to be relevant.
Phil: ahistorical? Since the Glorious Revolution, government here has been (even under past and present ‘degenerate’ states) through parliament, which by my count is 316 years of stability. 1832 might have had its tenser moments, but the tensions were resolved – compare the English experience with Continental Europe, especially in the context of autocratic monarchies (i.e., France and Russia).
And of course, Phil, stability conflicts with democracy. But at various times, a little more stability and a little less democracy is not exactly a bad thing. (Weimar, ahem.)
J: of course we won’t, but hey. Don’t get me wrong though, I don’t disagree with representativeness as a criterion – it’s just that it’s one of several.
“from the distinguished to the idiotic”
that sentence reads a lot like there should have been a hyperlink under the word ‘idiotic’ too – was there originally? just curious.
so I’ve read Barder senior, I’ve read you, I’ve read Barder senior’s response and although I can pick holes here and there, I’m buggered if I know what to think.
Clearly there’s a trade off between effectiveness and representation, but as to what the real world optimal combination is, surely the only thing to do is experiment?
Is there anything stopping us from giving one of the versions of PR that Jarndyce advocates a try, and changing back if we don’t like it? It might prove to be worse than the current system, but I can’t imagine it will be that much worse. I suspect we will end up with more or less the same species of unprincipled opportunists in charge either way.
What do you say Blimpish, live dangerously? Look at it this way, it might be your best chance of getting shot of Labour. And how can you lose – either we end up with a better system of government, or you end up being proved right.
win-win.
The other point to note is the perception of the electorate as to the fairness of a system. I don’t think it is the only reason for the current frustration with the political system, but it surely part of it. When statistic after statistic shows people a system which does not accurately record their overall intentions, then faith in that system will inevitably wain. All this talk of historic stability, king-making and coalitions tends to overshadow the man/woman in the booth, making their pencil mark and wondering whether it matters a damn. And more and more people seem to be deciding that it doesn’t.
Pingback: Make My Vote Count
Paddy: no deal. You’d never get the genie back in the bottle. Plus, I like being governed with vigour – helps to build up the hate.
Katherine: yes, I agree that the perceptions of fairness are important, but I wonder if that’s got a lot more to do with our politics and our parties. Dissatisfaction with politics is hardly unique to FPTP countries, after all.
_Dissatisfaction with politics is hardly unique to FPTP countries, after all._
Agreed, but you have to admit the turnout correlations PR vs FPTP are pretty conclusive. Not that turnout is everything, I know, but a civic minimum, surely, even if just to spoil the ballot.
Phil: ahistorical? Since the Glorious Revolution, government here has been (even under past and present ‘degenerate’ states) through parliament, which by my count is 316 years of stability.
That’s precisely what I meant by ‘ahistorical’! If you’re saying that we know parliamentary government is stable because Queen Anne governed as the Queen in Parliament, and so did Queen Victoria, and so does Ton^WQueen Elizabeth, you’re either playing with words or making a claim so weak as to be meaningless. And arguing that this record of stability means that we shouldn’t change the current form of Parliament would be a complete non sequitur.
of course, Phil, stability conflicts with democracy. But at various times, a little more stability and a little less democracy is not exactly a bad thing. (Weimar, ahem.)
I’ll see your Weimar and raise you January 1933: “a little less democracy” was precisely the solution favoured by German conservatives to resolve the inconvenient problem of people voting for the wrong parties…
Jarndyce makes a strong case, but I’m afraid that I feel the need to back Blimpish on this one – if only hesitatingly.
The case for PR would be unanswerable if we were governed by the legislature. Germany’s legislature does more or less reflect the actual votes of the people.
But, and here’s the rub, we are not governed by the legislature. We are governed by an executive which, in a parliamentary system, is extremely powerful. What the Germans will get is a legislature that they have voted for, but a government that basically not a single soul in the country voted for. I am a bit uneasy about a system where people go to the polls without being able to have the slightest confidence in parties’ manifestoes. The Germans’ political culture is based on coalition building. The British one is most certainly not.
Of course, there are big problems with FPTP (in a German context, I doubt it would be workable) – personally, I am happier living with them than with the problems of PR. I just don’t see PR as leading us to some democratic nirvana where everyone feels involved. In a British context, it is just as likely to lead to even greater cynicism as election promises are broken left, right and centre as parties fudge their way to coalition. The oft-repeated mantra of ‘you can’t trust anything they say’ will just become more true.
On turnout – I’m not sure on this. Scotland and Wales have not seen boosted turnouts. France moved away from PR in the late 80s – its turnouts are still much higher than those in the UK.
Phil:
On the first, yes, but I only raised the issue in the context of J saying that favouring political stability means I should favour pure monarchy. I was defending my support for parliamentary government on those terms, not its current form. (In other words: believing in stability doesn’t preclude me from supporting parliamentary government; the form of that government is a separate question.)
On the second, entirely true – but maybe if they’d have had a little less democracy a few years earlier, there wouldn’t have been the political chaos for the Nazi Party to feed on? The people are normally sensible, but rarely wise – and on occasion, their being sensible is a tenuous assumption. The extent to which the votes of a people in one election should be allowed to radically reshape a society, not just for them but for all future generations, should be constrained by our political institutions.
After all – how much pure democracy are you willing to take? We have these long debates over the dangers to civil liberties, and say that they should be constitutionally protected – isn’t that because of a preference for stability over democracy, because we think the whims of public opinions shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with some fundamentals? Likewise, international law – many pro-Europeans tell me that they like our EU membership because it guarantees legal protections which they wouldn’t get at national level – isn’t that a preference for stability over democracy, too?
J, 3A: I’d guess that turnout has far more to do with cultural and party-based factors than electoral systems. After all (as 3A points out), although PR is more responsive in getting your votes into the legislature, it isn’t more (and probably less) likely to get the government you want.
For me, the distinction is quite marked. Say two parties get around 35% of the vote (Germany, UK 2005 etc.). You (FPTPers) prefer a government that 2/3 of the people rejected, in order that we have a winner. We can always vote them out in 5 years. I prefer we have the politicians thrash out a compromise based on a blend of 2 programmes. That way I think we get a decent proxy, but admittedly we give the pols. a little more room for manoeuvre and “creativity” in the short run. Take your pick.
(One quibble, though: I’m pretty sure that academic studies have shown a clear correlation between turnout and proportional systems. Of course, other factors come into it, and correlation isn’t causation, and there will be exceptions, and so on. But the correlation is real. I can dig out some refs if required…)
Pingback: Blog: The (e)State of Tim
Simple solution: split the executive from the legislature. Have the executive elected on FPTP, the legislature on PR. That way you can have a government formed from a single party, with clarity of purpose and all the rest, but it can be kept in check by the will of the people, as expressed through their parliamentary representatives, who are made up of MPs elected proportionate to their support in the country as a whole. America with a twist, in effect.
This is the slight problem with PR – until we have seperation of powers the old “who’s going to form the government” thing will continue to haunt us. Which is precisely why I’d support FPTP for the executive (to ensure strong leadership), PR for the Commons (to ensure the will of the people is expressed), and keep the Lords appointed (with modifications from the curent system, to ensure expert advice on technical matters and avoid bad legislation) – take the most beneficial parts of all systems, and combine them. That’s how this country has largely worked for centuries – political pick’n’mix. It’s only been in the last 80 years or so that the continual evolution of our political system has stagnated.
Oh, and we’d have to maintain the royal veto as well, just in case – probably to be executed by the monarch on contentious issues following a referendum sparked by a petition signed by, say, 1,000,000 people, to ensure that the executive/legislature don’t devate too far from what the people want during the lifetime fo a parliament. Sorted.
And, thusly, Nosemonkey solves all the country’s ills. Now where’s my knighthood?
The prize goes to you, Nosemonkey. But it would require a revolution, not just a tidy little PR bill.
And, of course, I’d sooner go over to the dark side than agree to referendums taking any part in British political life (as I believe I’ve mentioned before somewhere…).
The German situation has pointed up one problem with democracy as a whole: If the government is at the will of the people, what happens when the people don’t know what they want?
On the German elections – this political horse trading by the politicians ain’t democracy. The people have not been asked what they want out of “Grand Coalition”, “Traffic Light”, “Jamaica” and “Red-Red-Green”. they were asked what they wanted out of “Black and Yellow” or “Red-Green” or “Hard Left” and they effectively rejected all three.
The democratic answer would be for the fractions to rewrite their proposed policies in view of this rejection and resubmit them to the people.
Ah, but part of the thinking behind the referendum lark is that a) under a decent, semi-representative system with checks and balances provided by an appointed expert chamber it would be far more difficult for truly terrible legislation to get anywhere anyway, and b) by providing for referenda within the general framework of governance, and made so that it would be difficult to achieve via petitions, you could rule out governments pussy-footing around when it comes to difficult decisions by promising to hold referenda on them – so you’d have an election in which people’s views on the Euro could be reflected by their party choice, as there’d no longer be the “we’ll hold a referendum” get-out. It could also counter the single-issue party problem in general elections – if UKIP etc. had that much support, they could get up a petition and force a referendum. Set the level high enough and they’d never have a chance. Sorted.
The real problem with FPTP for me is not just the alienated electorate, shameful low turnout (shared with other FPTP countries, e.g. USA), wasted votes and lack of representation of minority parties/ minority backgrounds in parliament; but the way radical views are not allowed to develop and become mainstream.
Commentators are fond of saying that the parties are all chasing the centre ground, but what they are really chasing are ‘established views’ (and these may be just myths established by overwhelming media coverage).
Under FPTP its much harder for parties to give the force of argument needed to push radical long-term objectives into the mainstream (no matter how much supporting evidence there is that these views are correct).
We have all heard the doorstep refrain ‘the parties are all the same’, and FPTP coupled with a press that stifles debate is leading to more and more stale argument as parties position their image (if not their policies) with the same old tired agendas funded by corporate interests. This is leading to long-term decisions being constantly delayed while other PR-run countries concentrate on longer term economic and social goals.
I think, Third Avenue mentions turnout levels in Scotland and Wales as unconvincing since PR and I have to point out how this is incorrect. Where PR has been introduced in the UK, it has had a positive impact on turnout. In Scotish and Welsh Parliament elections, turnout is either increasing or holding steady, at a time when turnout has crashed from over 71% to 61% in General elections nationally. The same is true for London elections and the European elections where PR has been introduced. Also as Jarndyce suggests, this really is a non-starter as an argument as there is loads of data worldwide to show how PR countries have significantly larger turnout on average. Also if you really want convincing of how FPTP has a massive detrimental effect on turnout, look at the difference in turnout between a ‘safe seat’ and a ‘marginal’. As ‘marginal seats’ are becoming less and less, only around 1 in 6 seats, it emphasises the scandal of the present system where the parties only need to target at most a few hundred thousand votes to win a supposedly national election.
The electorate are alienated from party politics and have little interest in electoral technicalities but they do know something is very rotten in our democracy. Im optimistic that change will come.
Pingback: Tim Worstall
Pingback: Make My Vote Count
Say two parties get around 35% of the vote (Germany, UK 2005 etc.). You (FPTPers) prefer a government that 2/3 of the people rejected, in order that we have a winner. We can always vote them out in 5 years. I prefer we have the politicians thrash out a compromise based on a blend of 2 programmes.
Coming to this one a bit late, but this seems to get close to the issue where I think the disagreement stems from. Jarndyce, and the other PR-er’s, want a government (or at least, a legislature) that is representative of the people’s will. The FPTP-er’s, like myself, want policies that are representative of the people’s will. Under PR, and particularly in the German case, the situation is such that all sides are going to end up disappointed, as (particularly) radical policies are going to be the first to hit the cutting-room floor in the post-election coalition-building wash-up. How do you govern from there, especially if you are trying to blend 2 programmes that are fundamentally incompatible? It’s a recipe for stagnation.
At least under FPTP, you know what the policies of the winner are, even if the winner represents a minority (but plurality) of the people. That way, you have some transparency and you can give the bastards a kicking in 4 years time. Under PR, you’re almost outsourcing the policy part of the political process to whoever ends up negotiating the coalition. I would guess that putting that much power into the hands of a small elite would turn people off. And yet, participation in the electoral process is higher under PR. How to explain that? Perhaps because votes are ‘worth more’ under PR, and the largest party will end up slightly dominating any coalition, it is easier to get out your own vote?
“The FPTP-er’s, like myself, want policies that are representative of the people’s will.”
How does FPTP result in policies that are representative of the people’s will, when it can result in a government and their policies that were voted for by only a minority?
Honest question – what is the thinking/argument behind that statement?
I can see the logic there.
Of the policies and potential governments put before the UK electorate, the Labour one was the most popular overall, albeit with only 37% of the electorate in favour. All of the alternatives were less popular. If their policies are flawed, or they fail to put them into process, the electorate reserves the right to fire them at the next opportunity.
Of the policies and potential governments put before the German people (for example), none will be chosen. The options on the table were Black-Yellow, Red-Green and Deep Red. The government that will be chosen by the politicians out of that will be Black-Red, Black-Yellow-Green, Red-Yellow-Green or Red-Green-Deep Red, none of which were voted for by the electorate.
Moving away from Germany, as a whole, PR will result in a government with policies chosen by a trading process between politicians, rather than by selection by the electorate out of a range of manifestoes. If you vote for party 3 (for example) and they end up in coalition with party 2, you have no control over which policies are sacrificed by party 3 (which may well be the policies that inspired you to vote for them in the first place) or which policies of party 2 are accepted (which may equally well be policies that deterred you from voting for party 2 in the first place) – unless a combined manifesto is released by parties 2 and 3 before the election. If so, they are effectively one party anyway. Therefore, the policy platform adopted by the new government will be one which the electorate have not directly endorsed.
Katherine: What Andy said, I think… On this:
How does FPTP result in policies that are representative of the people’s will, when it can result in a government and their policies that were voted for by only a minority?
It is the biggest minority. The PR-er’s may not like it, but that’s the rules of the FPTP game. I don’t think it’s perfect, but I do think that it is better than the alternative, which as we have seen leads to a set of policies that no-one actually voted for.
Andrew – did we really vote for all this nonsense Blair and co are pushing through on their distorted majority?
I really rather hope not.
Paul: Well, yes and no. Yes, because the precedent they have set over the last 8 years should have been a clue as to what they’d do for the next 4, and no because they didn’t explicitly state that they’d destroy our civil liberties, and suchlike, in their manifesto. A bit of a lawyer’s defence, that one, but that’s what you get when you elect a party full of them to government.
The beauty of the system as it stands is that we can definitively kick them out for a generation in 4-5 years time, instead of allowing them to slink back in a coalition with a more electable front, undisclosed prior to those elections, which could be the case with PR. ‘Imagine a government oscillating between Labour and Lib Dem, forever!’, as Orwell might have said…
I think the permanent Lib-Lab coalition talk is incredibly naive. Fair enough, party allegiance runs deep and some muppets will forever vote for ‘their’ party even if it declared it would shoot its supporters in the back of the head. Also, I believe the initial result of any sort of coalition govt, be it under PR or FPTP following a hung parliament, would be some form of Lib-Lab thing… but…
Every poll taken on the subject shows the country to be, on average, centre-right. Also, people will vote against a shit govt, if there is even only a moderately viable alternative, and even if it involves a rethink of who they should be supporting. It won’t happen straight away, but people will get used to it. A lot of people now just vote for ‘their’ party for the hell of it as it won’t make any difference anyhow, or don’t vote at all.
Any form of PR would, I think, challenge existing ideas and preconceptions of what the parties stood for. Again, not immediately perhaps, but within a parliament or two.
But, if I think about this too long, I enter into all sorts of weird speculation about how parties might fracture/members jump ship etc which all depends on the system used, the state of the country, the respective leaders etc, and so is, ultimately, a big waste of time…
Paul: Maybe, but there is a solid 30% who will always vote Tory, and a solid 30% who will always vote Labour, leaving us with 40% of voters to play for, many of whom (over half, at least) pretty clearly identify with a left-leaning Lib Dem party. Unless the Libs fracture, or the two main parties come apart, I don’t see the Libs forming a coalition with the Tories. I don’t really see any of the parties coming apart at the seams either, but like you say, it’s all speculative. The difficulties in gaining credibility (and money…) in launching a new party make it massively unlikely that any of the big three would split, I’d guess.
Either way, Labour had their chance (and a very clear mandate) at electoral reform, and they blew it. The public would (rightly) see any move towards PR now as the last throw of the dice for a dying administration. The great thing about the British public, in electoral terms, is that they’re wonderfully cynical.
Sorry, wasn’t really clear as I could have been. On this:
Every poll taken on the subject shows the country to be, on average, centre-right.
Sure, but it’s marginal, and it would require the ‘left-right’ balance of available parties to match the ‘left-right’ balance of voters, which it doesn’t. I.e. a 52% support in the country for centre-right government could still be defeated if there aren’t enough centre-right parties to vote for – some of that 52% won’t vote Tory, and there is no other choice (currently) on the centre right, so they vote Lib Dem hoping for the economic liberalism, and they would invariably get a centre-left government under PR.
This subject probably needs a whole extra post, and as Blimpish has promised to do it, I’ll pile on the pressure by reminding him.
“so they vote Lib Dem hoping for the economic liberalism”
Surely it’s the Lib Dems for social liberties and Tories for economic ones… although it has all got horribly confused recently.
I blame Blair.
I’ve always thought that there must be more scope for either the Tories or the Lib Dems to be as liberal on the social/economic side (as appropriate) as a vote-winning measure, but then if that were true, I guess more people would read The Economist…
Surely it’s the Lib Dems for social liberties and Tories for economic ones… although it has all got horribly confused recently.
It is currently, but under PR, centre-right voters who can’t face voting Tory because of the social authoritarianism would vote Lib Dem hoping that they would be able to enact some economic liberalism at least in a coalition government – i.e. they would take the social liberalism as read.
I’ve always thought that there must be more scope for either the Tories or the Lib Dems to be as liberal on the social/economic side (as appropriate) as a vote-winning measure.
You say that, but the people seem to like (some) social authoritarianism, which is why New Labour can get away with its crusade against civil liberties with relative impunity. Or more simply, the things that bug those of us who are interested in politics don’t matter at all to those who just turn up to vote once every five years.
Andrew, you state that it is the ‘biggest minority’ that wins under FPTP, but that forgets that you can come second and ‘win’ under FPTP. Indeed Labour could have come third this time and still had a majority. How is this justifiable?
Also Andrew, you seem to think that each party is some special animal that honours its manifesto commitments. Labour’s failure to honour its manifesto commitment on a referendum on electoral reform demonstrates that policies are just as flexible under FPTP as under PR. Each party is a coalition of views, the difference is they form coalition governments on a minority of the vote under FPTP but on a majority of the vote under PR.
You argue that it is easy to replace a party that doesn’t honour its manifesto commitments under the FPTP system. But when between 57% and 65% have voted for parties other than the party in government, how easy is it really to know who to vote for? The vast majority of the electorate vote against their MP, ranging from 82% in George Galloway’s seat to 54% in Gerry Adams seat. Unless you follow the numbers game in your own constituency and most don’t, it can be very difficult to judge how to get a result out of this system (even if you are lucky enough to live in the 15% of seats that are marginal and actually matter).
The maths is further complicated by 13% of Labour supporters admitting to voting tactically for the Lib Dems (recent Guardian Survey). So you have to try and double guess how other voters are going to vote taking into account potential tactical nuance. It is a nightmare!
This game of tactical Russian Roulette shouldn’t have to be a consideration for voters. Lets make it simple for them. Vote for the party you actually like and know that this vote will count. Only PR will give us this and give us governments that represent the majority’s views.
Andrew, you state that it is the ‘biggest minority’ that wins under FPTP, but that forgets that you can come second and ‘win’ under FPTP. Indeed Labour could have come third this time and still had a majority. How is this justifiable?
Well, it isn’t, but they didn’t, and that is really more an argument about ending the gerrymandering and inaccuracy that goes with the boundary set-up than a comprehensive demolition of the whole FPTP system. I’d fix the problem by tweaking the boundaries to be more representative of the demographic balance of the country, rather than tearing down the whole system and starting again. If we did this more often than at present, and made constituencies more equal in size (in terms of numbers of people), the problem would largely go away.
you seem to think that each party is some special animal that honours its manifesto commitments.
No Neil, although it would obviously be convenient for you to once again ascribe views to me which I do not hold in reality. What I actually said was that you could give the bastards a kicking in 4 years time as they had stated their policies on the record prior to an election. This is a very different thing to honouring one’s commitments. Indeed, if you had any principles at all in respect to the issue of electoral reform, you wouldn’t be voting for Labour, would you?
Each party is a coalition of views, the difference is they form coalition governments on a minority of the vote under FPTP but on a majority of the vote under PR.
No. The difference is that a party has to state its policies upfront under FPTP, but is free to throw out those policies under PR as soon as the election is over, with the approval of the people. That isn’t healthy for democracy.
But when between 57% and 65% have voted for parties other than the party in government, how easy is it really to know who to vote for?
It’s really quite simple, Neil. There are two parties that can realistically win in Britain. If you want Labour to continue governing, you vote for Labour. If you don’t, vote Tory. Only a hopeless idealist, or someone who doesn’t care about their own vote, but naively believes in the power of ‘sending a message’ would vote for any other party.
This game of tactical Russian Roulette shouldn’t have to be a consideration for voters.
You say that, but the predictions before the last election (Labour to get in with a moderately reduced majority), which seems to be what the public at large wanted, is exactly what happened in the election. It can’t be that complicated, can it? Besides that, do you really think the people are so stupid that they can’t even work out who to vote for to get what they want? And you want to give these idiots more power?
Only PR will give us this and give us governments that represent the majority’s views.
No, PR will give us governments that represent some negotiation between whichever coalition of minority views is best placed and quickest to grab power at the time. I don’t see how advocates for more democracy can seriously endorse a process of policy-making in darkened, smoke-filled rooms, safely cocooned away from those pesky voters and manage to keep a straight face about it.
After all, if we were really interested in government by majority opinion, we’d just do it by referendum, or by opinion poll, on every topic of any importance. I fear your call for government-by-majority view is really just a way to entrench centre-left politics in power, which you happily confirm on your own blog. If that is not the case, and you have a genuine commitment to democracy, and the rule of the majority, are you genuinely willing to accept the view of the majority on subjects like the death penalty, which opinion polling shows continual majority support for? Or the restriction of abortion rights, which again has majority support? Or are you only really in favour of the majority view when the majority holds the ‘correct’ opinions?
“The difference is that a party has to state its policies upfront under FPTP, but is free to throw out those policies under PR as soon as the election is over…”
Andrew, this is precisely what happens under FPTP. What happened to the promise of a referendum on electoral reform? It was clearly in the Labour manifesto. There are hundreds of examples of parties not honouring their manifesto promises under FPTP.
Manifestos are no less changeable after an election under FPTP than PR. There is factional fighting in smoke filled rooms occurring just as much. Different factions fight for policy changes and get policy victories. The difference is that under FPTP the majority have had their vote ignored in deciding who debates these decisions.
Indeed after the election, circumstances can change and voter priorities can change, so that manifesto promises are no longer desirable. To hold up the manifestos as some sort of honourable code is ridiculous. They are little more than a guide to the values of a party and if the majority of these policies are carried out it is miraculous.
What all you FPTPers forget is that voters vote for all sorts of reasons. Just because they vote for a party doesn’t mean they want ALL of its policies and reject ALL of the policies of the other parties. People vote for the party that MOST closely reflects their values and has the most important policies it agrees with. Under FPTP a large number also vote for tactical reasons. Not for their favourite party but the one with the best chance of beating the disliked incumbent in their seat. This is russian roulette because a lot of voters don’t take the local numbers game into account and sometimes a switch from Labour to Lib Dems gives the Tory the seat. This was not what the voters who switched wanted. There were plenty of examples of this at this election. This is why changing governments is actually harder for the voter to decipher under FPTP because it is not as simple as voting for the party you like and knowing your vote will count.
When coalitions are formed under PR they are formed between parties that can agree on the most policy commitments. I might vote for the Labour party, but I know that other left of centre parties would agree on more of its policies than right of centre parties would.
Not only does FPTP ignore the majority of voters by giving absolute power to parties with minority support, it discriminates against voters by geography. FPTP will always be open to gerrymandering of boundaries on a frightening scale, PR corrects this distortion. Adjusting boundaries to voter preferences is always going to be a very inexact science, why not solve the problem properly by having PR.
This brings me on to the real crux of my argument…
“I fear your call for government-by-majority view is really just a way to entrench centre-left politics in power, which you happily confirm on your own blog.”
I do believe in government by majority and it just so happens that does coincide with centre-left governments dominating. That is democracy.
On the capital punishment question, if it is the majority view and in a lot of these surveys ‘it depends how you ask the question’, then I would argue that the majority were wrong. Representative democracy isn’t perfect but I prefer a government elected by a majority, to a government elected by a minority. Anyway the point is irrelevant in this debate. Are you trying to say that FPTP has prevented the death penalty being reinstated? I would argue that FPTP makes the death penalty more likely but that is another debate…
The crux for me though is how the parties are forced to concentrate on the swing voters of marginal seats ‘the only voters who really matter’ according to Michael Howard.
The 15% of seats that are marginal are not representative of the general population because they are much more affluent than urban deprived seats. This means these 250,000 more middle class voters drag the parties to the right while millions of urban voters in Labour heartlands are ignored. These left wing urban votes are wasted because they just pile up majorities in seats you are going to win anyway, so FPTP encourages them to be ignored.
This causes the spiral of decline that we are in. Leave it much longer and it will be virtually irreversible like it is in the US. The alienation and disaffection of voters, large drops in turnout in urban safe seats, suppressing of internal party democracy and debate. The whole media debate becomes focussed on these centrist middle class swing voters in marginal seats and becomes tedious and stale.
PR would re-enfranchise these urban left of centre voters. Because their votes would count, it would be worth designing policies that attract these voters again and Labour would be able to be more radical and left wing. New Zealand has just achieved 81% turnout, a rise from 76% at its last election. Why? Because it has moved to PR. There is a remarkable level of consistency to their turnout with high 60%s in the most deprived seats. The biggest rises in turnout were in deprived urban areas. These are natural Labour voters.
By the way, one of the reasons I vote Labour is because they are ‘closer’ to electoral reform than the Tories, who are the only other likely winners in my seat under this crap system. To vote elsewhere was to waste my vote.
Neil: You haven’t really read what I have written, or answered any of my questions there, have you? Want to take another shot?
Andrew, I’ll break it down into bitesize chunks for you.
1. Tweaking the boundaries to voter preference is a very inexact science, the only way to fix the gerrymandering permanently is PR.
2. It is not possible to give a party ‘a kicking’ because it is more complicated than that. Parties policies are not distinct, they are blurred, there is a lot of crossover of policies between parties. What if the ‘one’ alternative offered under FPTP is not what you want? PR gives you more options, safe in the knowledge your vote won’t be wasted because of accident of geography or because the party can’t win in your area. People vote for the party they like the most, they don’t agree with all their policies. Coalitions will be formed with parties that share similar values and policies. More voters views are taken into account. It is not an exact science like you make out. Just because you vote for one party doesn’t mean you reject all the policies of every other party.
3. Like I said Labour is the most effective vote I have under FPTP in my area as regards electoral reform.
4. There is just as much behind doors bartering goes on after the election under FPTP between factions of the ‘elected’ party. The difference is the majority of voters are ignored under FPTP in choosing who takes part in this debate.
5. It was purely an accident that Labour’s majority was reduced a bit this time. Who said the voters wanted this? Are you telling me the voters who switched from Labour to Lib Dem are happy with the new Tory MP they got as a result? Are you telling me they knew this would happen?
6. Opinion polls can be biased depending on how you ask the question. If the majority believe in capital punishment I would argue they are wrong. Representative democracy is not perfect, but I prefer my governments to be elected by a majority than elected by a minority. This is irrelevant anyway unless you are arguing that capital punishment is less likely under FPTP.
7. ‘Smoke filled rooms’ happen under FPTP as well.
Andrew, I’ll break it down into bitesize chunks for you.
Not that helpful if you just rephrase your last comment, rather than reading mine and answering my questions. Nonetheless:
Tweaking the boundaries to voter preference is a very inexact science, the only way to fix the gerrymandering permanently is PR.
Currently, it maybe, but that’s because constituencies are of unequal size, and the process doesn’t happen often enough. These are easy fixes.
It is not possible to give a party ‘a kicking’ because it is more complicated than that.Like I said Labour is the most effective vote I have under FPTP in my area as regards electoral reform.
Well, that’s your choice of course, but I’d have thought that repeated betrayals on an issue obviously so close to your heart might tell you something.
There is just as much behind doors bartering goes on after the election under FPTP between factions of the ‘elected’ party. The difference is the majority of voters are ignored under FPTP in choosing who takes part in this debate.
Under PR, all voters are ignored, because a political elite decides which policies will go forward. And that elite is made up from whichever combination of parties can come together the quickest. In what sense does that represent the people? To take an example, let’s imagine a country where there are 5 parties that each get 20% of the vote. In our example, any 3 of these could get together to form a government, but the people have no say over which 3 do that. How is that representative?
It was purely an accident that Labour’s majority was reduced a bit this time. Who said the voters wanted this? Are you telling me the voters who switched from Labour to Lib Dem are happy with the new Tory MP they got as a result? Are you telling me they knew this would happen?
Yes. It’s called the wisdom of crowds. The consequences of a Lib Dem vote formed a fairly integral part of your party’s campaign, I seem to remember. I’m pretty sure that voters knew what they were doing.
Opinion polls can be biased depending on how you ask the question. If the majority believe in capital punishment I would argue they are wrong.
Right, so you don’t in fact believe in government by majority opinion then?
PR would re-enfranchise these urban left of centre voters. Because their votes would count, it would be worth designing policies that attract these voters again and Labour would be able to be more radical and left wing.
That’s total nonsense. Your lot had a triple digit majority for over 8 years, and an unopposed mandate to be as left-wing as you liked, and you blew it. 1997 was your moment – anyone could have beaten the Tories. Arthur bloody Scargill could have formed a government in 97. How much power do your side need to implement this left-wing utopia? If you can’t do it under FPTP, in a system of virtual elective dictatorship, what makes you think you’ll manage it under the compromises necessary under a PR coalition?
I do believe in government by majority and it just so happens that does coincide with centre-left governments dominating. That is democracy.
Again, opinion polls show a fairly consistent (marginal) centre-right majority in this country. If the current parties realigned under PR, e.g. by the Lib Dems splitting in two, would you honestly be happy to be ruled by a semi-permanent centre-right coalition?
And finally:
Coalitions will be formed with parties that share similar values and policies.
Like in Germany, with the proposed grand coalition between the CDU and SPD? You’re being hopelessly naive about the nature of power and politics, and what that does to the people in this game.
Whoops – missed a HTML tag. Here’s the missing chunk:
It is not possible to give a party ‘a kicking’ because it is more complicated than that.
No, it really isn’t. If a party betray their manifesto commitments, or even the spirit of those, enough times, the public tends to tire of them. Sure, it tends to have to be the larger issues, but that’s only natural. People are risk averse – why risk change when the alternative may not be significantly better?
1. Even if you changed the boundaries before every election (ignoring the waste of money), how can you ‘guess’ what voter preferences are going to be? People move between seats and obviously change which party they support. It is an impossible task. Also if you keep changing the boundaries chasing the impossible, what of this ‘supposed’ MP-constituency link you like to go on about? The fact is, if you want to cut wasted votes and tactical voting you need PR.
2. You didn’t answer this point.
Do you accept that people vote (ignoring tactical voting) for the party they like the most, not because they agree with every policy? It is obvious that voters like different amounts of different manifestos. It is not a distinct choice. Just because I vote Labour doesn’t mean I agree with all their policies and reject all the policies of every other party. This assumption is where you FPTPers go wrong in your argument. PR reflects more accurately the views of the entire electorate. This is demonstrated by the higher turnouts under PR.
3. As for the electoral reform issue, it is an issue close to my heart and Labour are my best chance of getting it. Who knows when we will get a hung parliament under this system. There were people saying to me to risk a Tory government and hope for a hung parliament. What a perverse voting system we have, if this isn’t russian roulette, I don’t know what is?
4. The political elite that decides which policies goes forward is voted for by the majority under PR and the minority under FPTP. We all know parties junk the manifesto just as much in FPTP. In fact it is probably more likely because the party knows voters have only got one other choice. Under PR they have more choice.
5. Your hypothetical example of 5 parties with 20% just doesn’t happen. There is always going to be differences in vote share between the parties, it is the larger parties that have more chance of forming the government.
I’ll give you a analogy. You and five mates go to the pub (Im assuming you have this many mates…only joking.)
There is a special ‘one off’ offer on at the bar, buy 5 drinks for £5, but the catch is all the drinks have to be the same, e.g. 5 pints of guiness.
One of you takes the order, 2 of you choose guiness, the other 3 choose kronenburg, carlsberg and carling respectively. The FPTPer goes to the bar and comes back with 5 guiness because the ‘biggest minority’ chose that. 2 of you are very happy, the other 3 hate guiness and are very pissed off.
The STV guy says write down your preferences in order, 1 has kronenburg as his first choice, two others have it as their second choice and the guiness people have beamish as their second choice. He comes back with 5 kronenburg and 1 is very happy and 2 others are reasonably happy and 2 are very pissed off.
The MMP guy looks at these choices and after consultation brings back five Kronenburg with the same result as STV. Which of these systems is better?
Try out other combination if you like, you will find the worse system is FPTP. Just to make it more accurate, depending on where each mate sits round the table, by the quirk of FPTP some get more say than others and sometimes this leads to the biggest minority being ignored for an even smaller minority. This gives you an idea of just how ridiculous and unfair FPTP is.
6. Well it depended on who you listened to, obviously the Lib Dem switchers from Labour didn’t believe us (and of course a minority of them were right not to because they lived in certain constituencies where the Lib Dems win. But it is russian roulette because what place has all this tactical nonsense in politics. You should be able to vote for which party’s policies you like the best without having to worry about what area you are in, and who has what percentage of the vote. It makes a mockery of democracy. I would love to do a survey, and find out how many of those switchers actually realised it meant a Tory MP, I bet they would be shocked.
7. Labour win a triple digit majority by ignoring the millions of voters in our heartlands for the few middle class in marginals that matter under this system. This is precisely why we can’t move to the left.
8. I don’t believe there is a centre-right majority, can you give me a link?
9. The German result was exceptional. Under any system where 2 parties get 35% of the vote and 3 others 10%, what do you expect? FPTP would have given a similar stalemate. It is not a big deal, the best government the UK ever had was the National coalition during the war. A grand coalition might be what Germany needs, although it is more complicated than this…
Andrew, on your final point, the difference between FPTP and PR and what makes open debate more possible and why they have managed long term consensus on social and economic infrastructure better than us, is because they can fine tune their government when we have to swing from extreme to extreme, two steps forward, one step back. It has held this country back. To use another analogy its like cooking on a gas hob or an electric hob, I know which I prefer. PR is the gas hob to FPTP’s electric hob.
Neil: We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one, although I’m sure there will be more posts on it in the future to cross swords.
Andrew, I wonder if, as a Conservative supporter, you have read this. If nothing else, it might make you think a bit more about the system you are supporting.
Andrew, on your left/right point, here is a survey quote from the yougov polling report blog that seems to suggest most people see themselves as left of centre.
“Now a straight left-right scale is pretty meaningless as a representation of parties policies these day. Despite that it is still a good way of looking at how people view the images of parties, and how close they feel to them.
Now, while Populus used a numerical scale (and found slightly different results – Labour, for example, were seen as being slightly right of centre), YouGov and ICM used almost identical wording in their questions, meaning we can compare the figures (On ICM’s tables they use a scale of -3 to 3, but so I can compare I’m using Peter Kellner’s method of changing this into a numerical average for both polls, very left-wing is counted as -100, fairly left-wing as -67, slightly left of centre as -33, centre as 0, slight right of centre at +33 and so on).
Bear in mind that even using almost identical wording there are obvious differences – YouGov’s fieldwork is online, while ICM’s is done on the phone, not to mention the fact that they were done a couple of months apart. This means there are some differences: the primary one being that people are more likely to describe themselves as being in the centre in the ICM poll.
The average voter in both polls puts themselves almost bang in the centre of the political spectrum (on YouGov the average was -2, on ICM it was +2). The average Tory voter in both polls puts themselves slightly right-of-centre (YouGov +35, ICM +27), while Lib Dem and Labour voters put themselves slightly left of centre in YouGov’s poll (-23 and -22 respectively) and slightly less so in ICM’s poll (-8 and -10). Already there is an obvious lesson here – current Labour and Lib Dem voters are almost interchangable ideologically. They are currently appealling to exactly the same ideological demographic.”
As nearly 60% voted Labour or Lib Dem it also suggests that their left of centre averages must be the majority.
Forgot to include the link to yougov, so here it is.
No, you’re misinterpreting the data. The relevant quote is:
The average voter in both polls puts themselves almost bang in the centre of the political spectrum (on YouGov the average was -2, on ICM it was +2).
So the average voter sees himself as an absolute centrist, although you’d expect that (no-one thinks that they are an extremist). The fact that around 60% of people who voted voted for the Lib Dems and Labour is immaterial here. The relative ratings are what count. As Labour and the Lib Dems are rated at around -20, and the average voter is at 0, the country is broadly centre-right (or at least, further right than both of those two parties). This is all perception though, and I’d argue that the left-right labels are outdated now anyway, so I’m not sure exactly what it proves. The interesting bit about that survey is that Tony Blair’s personal rating is dead centre, but we knew that – he’s a brilliant politician.
But as the average Tory is +35 and the average voter is 0 doesn’t that mean the country is centre left? (or at least more to the left of the Tories than they are to the right of Labour.)
Yes, on the bracketed bit. Fortunately, the historical progression on these polls is a rightward drift of the people, and a leftward drift of the Conservative party.
I think a better source for this info is the Chris Lightfoot study into YouGov polling data, which showed the people were fairly central to slightly left on economic issues, and more strongly right on social issues.
Isn’t that different from saying there is a centre right majority, which is what you claimed before?
Isn’t that different from saying there is a centre right majority, which is what you claimed before?
Depends what you mean by ‘right’, doesn’t it?
Well as the same lightfoot survey also said that economic issues were much more important than social issues in how people vote, I would suggest the majority of people are centre-left.
How else can you explain the fact that the majority vote for what they ‘perceive’ are left of centre parties?
How else can you explain the fact that the majority vote for what they ‘perceive’ are left of centre parties?
The majority of people who vote is not a majority of people.
Andrew, if you look at those who don’t vote, they are even more left of centre, that is why a drop in turnout always hurts Labour more.
Evidence, Neil?
Labour consistently do worse in elections than in opinion polls. I know some of this is explained by ‘shy tories’ but the rest is down to a lot of people saying Labour even though they don’t vote.
Going back onto the main subject explain away the following example.
Imagine all the parties only have 1 policy.
Party A to cut taxes by 10%.
Party B to increase taxes by 5%.
Party C to increase taxes by 10%.
The Election result is as follows;
Party A 40% of the vote.
Party B 25% of the vote.
Party C 35% of the vote.
Under FPTP; Party A forms the government and cuts taxes. This is despite the majority-60% of the population voting for a tax increase. How is this fair?
Under PR; Parties B and C form a coalition government and negotiate a cut in taxes between 5% and 10%, which is much closer to what 60% of the electorate voted for.
Obviously I should have put ‘increase’ in taxes.
Made a mess of posting that, so I’ll try again.
Imagine all the parties only have 1 policy.
Party A to cut taxes by 10%.
Party B to increase taxes by 5%.
Party C to increase taxes by 10%.
Election result;
Party A 40% of the vote.
Party B 25% of the vote.
Party C 35% of the vote.
Under FPTP; Party A forms the government and cuts taxes. This is despite the majority-60% of the population voting for a tax increase
Under PR; Parties B and C form a coalition government and negotiate an increase in taxes between 5% and 10%, which is closer to what 60% of the electorate voted for.
Labour consistently do worse in elections than in opinion polls. I know some of this is explained by ’shy tories’ but the rest is down to a lot of people saying Labour even though they don’t vote.
That’s not evidence. It’s speculation. Your tax example is too simplistic to be useful for discussion.
“the average turnout in Con constituencies ran at 65%, seven points higher than in Labour constituencies“.
“Quite simply if enough Labour supporters stay away from the polls in these seats then the party could be second to the Tories in terms of overall votes even though it would have a reasonable majority in terms of seats.
This voting pattern happened on a huge scale last time. Labour successfully held onto its vote in the marginals it was defending but the overall big drop in its margin was because supporters elsewhere did not turnout.”
It is generally accepted that Labour suffers more from low turnout than the Tories, but if you want to believe otherwise, you show me some evidence of this.
Here is a more complicated model with 3 policy areas, I can make the model as complex as you want and the results still hold. Have a go trying to make FPTP reflect majority views on policy better than PR.
Party A, to cut taxes by 10%; invade Iraq; ban gay sex.
Party B, to increase taxes by 5%; against invasion; lower age of consent for gay sex to 16.
Party C, to increase taxes by 10%; against invasion; keep age of consent for gay sex at 18.
Party A, 40% of the vote
Party B, 25% of the vote
Party C, 35% of the vote
Under FPTP, Party A wins the election, cuts taxes by 10%, invades Iraq and bans gay sex, despite 60% of the electorate voting against all these policies. How can you justify this?
Under PR, parties B and C forms coalition increases tax by 8%, lowers age of consent to 17, and doesn’t invade Iraq. This is much closer to what the majority wanted.
Here is my article on PR which provides more evidence on turnout and links to academic studies of PR.
You have no guarantee that parties B and C will form the coalition, so your example is again useless. A model would consider all of the alternative outcomes from a set of inputs – all you are doing is telling a story which fits your argument. It’s lovely that you’ll go to so much work, but it’s little more than a nice fiction.
It seems extremely likely that the parties with the most similar policies will join in coalitions and the evidence of PR systems around the world bears this out. But even if A and C went into coalition it would still produce results closer to what the majority wanted.
Change the inputs to whatever you think and you will get the same results. Go on, please have a go and prove me wrong if you can.
It seems extremely likely that the parties with the most similar policies will join in coalitions and the evidence of PR systems around the world bears this out.
But not Germany.
But even if A and C went into coalition it would still produce results closer to what the majority wanted.
No it wouldn’t. It would produce results that no-one wanted.
But ‘closer’ to what they wanted than having Party A in total control.
Isn’t it ridiculous to argue that because the majority voted for either a tax increase of 5% or a tax increase of 10% and didn’t specifically vote for a tax cut of 2%, they would prefer a tax cut of 10% instead? Obviously the tax cut of 2% is ‘closer’ to what they wanted and much better than what would happen under FPTP.
Anyway, where are your examples that disprove my model above? If I’ve chosen convenient inputs (as you suggest), it must be easy for you to give examples where FPTP represents the majority better than PR. Where are they? I’m still waiting.
Anyway this ‘no-one’ wanted argument is flawed. When people vote for a party they vote for the party ‘closest’ to their views. It doesn’t represent an absolute choice of everything they want. All PR does is make this decision more refined and reflects majority opinion instead of having minority rule under FPTP.
But ‘closer’ to what they wanted than having Party A in total control.
No, because taxes are a largely binary issue. Voters don’t generally care about the exact size of cuts or increases, only the principle – they either want tax cuts or tax rises. So a coalition producing a stalemate result would satisfy no-one. If taxes neither rise nor fall, no-one is happy. If taxes are slightly cut (to reflect A’s larger vote share), you make 60% of the people very unhappy, and 40% of them distinctly unsatisfied. It isn’t close to what anyone wants.
If I’ve chosen convenient inputs (as you suggest), it must be easy for you to give examples where FPTP represents the majority better than PR. Where are they? I’m still waiting.
And you’ll be waiting a long time. Firstly, I have never claimed that FPTP represents the majority better than PR, just that it represents the will of the largest plurality accurately. Secondly, I have already said your model is simplistic, naive and flawed. I’ll add to that list the fact that if you want to change the current system, you have to provide a compelling reason for change. So far, you have failed to do so. It is not for me to justify the current system, because if you are unable to put forward a case for change, the status quo remains.
All PR does is make this decision more refined and reflects majority opinion instead of having minority rule under FPTP.
Refined? As in ‘chosen in committee’, rather than by the electorate. Some refinement…
__If taxes are slightly cut (to reflect A’s larger vote share), you make 60% of the people very unhappy, and 40% of them distinctly unsatisfied. It isn’t close to what anyone wants.__
You don’t seriously believe this do you? So the 60% who voted for a tax rise would prefer a tax cut of 10% rather than the compromise 2% cut? Because that is what you are saying.
___And you’ll be waiting a long time. Firstly, I have never claimed that FPTP represents the majority better than PR, just that it represents the will of the largest plurality accurately.___
Except FPTP doesn’t necessarily even represent the largest plurality. What a pathetically floored system it is. I can show you plenty of examples where the majority are completely ignored in favour of a minority under FPTP, whereas you can’t show a single example of this happening under PR. That sounds like a pretty compelling reason for changing the status quo. The reason you don’t try and justify FPTP is because you can’t.
___Refined? As in ‘chosen in committee’, rather than by the electorate. Some refinement…___
How do you think current political parties come up with policy? It is chosen in commitee rooms with little say from even their own party members, let alone the electorate. The electorate choose the ‘closest’ to their views from this very imperfect choice of the few parties effectively available. At least under PR they get more choice and can have a bigger influence on policy by electing representatives more in tune with what they actually want.
You’ve still not grasped (probably deliberately) that when people vote for a party, it is NOT an absolute choice of everything they want. In many cases they are picking the ‘least worst option’. They might only agree with a few percent of their policies but it might be the only effective choice they are given. They know to vote for a party that represents their views better but has no chance of winning is a wasted vote. This is corrected under PR where every vote, for whatever party, counts. FPTP shuts out a wide range of voters from voting for what they want, that is why turnout falls so low under FPTP.
You don’t seriously believe this do you? So the 60% who voted for a tax rise would prefer a tax cut of 10% rather than the compromise 2% cut? Because that is what you are saying.
No, I am saying that it is better for 40% of people to be happy than 0%.
The reason you don’t try and justify FPTP is because you can’t.
I don’t need to justify it. It’s the current system. You need to justify changing it. You haven’t done.
I suspect that we are going round in circles, so once again, I will suggest that we end this thread. I’m not going to convince you, and you certainly aren’t going to convince me.
Thread is duly ended.
Sorry. Just one more thought has occurred to me. Feel free to ignore it as we have already agreed to disagree, which leads on to my point.
Imagine that we both had 50% of the power to design a new electoral system.
There could be complete stalemate, with me advocating a completely proportional system and you advocating FPTP.
But lets just say that we HAD to come to some agreement (it was in both our interests to do so). Lets say for argument sake we would both be shot if we didn’t agree.
(Which I imagine some who read this would probably like to see happen to either or both of us).
We would probably agree to some compromise electoral system somewhere half way between FPTP and complete PR, rather than be killed.
This compromise would wholely satisfy none of us, but both of us would have more satisfaction than losing completely, thereby we both have had a say in the outcome. This effectively is what PR is, just a thought. Like I say, no need to reply.