How much power does your vote really have?

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

I know, people argue against PR because it creates a "weak government" as if that's a bad thing. A government that has to work hard to convince others of the right course of action. A government that actually has to engage with people of a different opinion in a meaningful way more than once every 5 years. Yeah, sounds shit that. :rolleyes:

I agree many PR systems don't produce weak Govts (thought they can - Italy being an example). But they don't magically engage with the population either - they spend as much or as little trying to convince the public as FTP systems. How they get things done is by horsetrading between leaders and in which the public have no say

Former Member

They don't necessarily engage the population (although us, America and Canada, all with FPTP, all have very low turnout), but it does force them to engage with opposing viewpoints (which can reasonably claim to represent large parts of the population) and compromise more often, which I think is largely a good thing, even though there are plenty of examples of me not getting my own way because of it.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

They don't necessarily engage the population (although us, America and Canada, all with FPTP, all have very low turnout), but it does force them to engage with opposing viewpoints (which can reasonably claim to represent large parts of the population) and compromise more often, which I think is largely a good thing, even though there are plenty of examples of me not getting my own way because of it.

Compromise isn't democracy though - often it's far from it, ie it's no more democratic when nobody gets what they want than when its 40%.

However I'd also saying, working within the system, there's a lot more compromise than you think between the parties (though admittedly less to do with the voting system and more to do with political culture and getting things through the system smoothly).

I'd also argue the turnout won't particually change with PR. Low turnout is caused by many things, but one of the major ones is belief (imhnio false belief) that all the parties are the same, pushing them together into a compromise centre isn't likely to change that.

Former Member

Flashman's Ghost wrote: »

Compromise isn't democracy though - often it's far from it, ie it's no more democratic when nobody gets what they want than when its 40%.

Nothing's democratic in a political system. A government with 35% of the vote from an even smaller percentage of the actual population being given almost total power is hardly democratic either. At least proportional representation is an attempt to give as many people as possible roughly what they wanted, rather than a large minority imposing all of their views on the whole country. But I don't see how you can say it's not democratic. It's not absolute democracy, of course, because that's just another way of saying mob rule. But it certainly does a better job of ensuring that everyone has their political views represented in government (as best you can with another person acting on your behalf). I don't think anyone would choose our system if they were designing a constitution from scratch, and the only reason we still have it is because it benefits the two big parties, who are then the only parties ever in a position to change it.

Flashman's Ghost wrote: »

I'd also argue the turnout won't particually change with PR. Low turnout is caused by many things, but one of the major ones is belief (imhnio false belief) that all the parties are the same, pushing them together into a compromise centre isn't likely to change that.

I don't agree. The single biggest reason for not voting is that your vote doesn't make any difference. There's no greater way of changing that than by having a system where people can vote for the party that best fits their views, and have it count, rather than having to vote for one of the two they think are likely to win their particular seat (and that's if you're lucky enough not to live in one of the many safe seats).

Incidentally, the country closest to pure democracy is Switzerland, with their constant referendums. And they have one of the lowest voter turnouts in the world.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote: »

The advantage of the British system is that it all but eliminates the prospect of having a fragmented parliament a la Germany or Italy... but the downside is that of all the democratic systems, it is one of the least democratic ones. You have to be sorry for the Lib Dems in particular.

To me the best way forward would be to keep a first past the post House of Commons - that way governments get a proper mandate and there aren't lots of weak goverments. But to balance that we should have long terms of PR in the Lords so that the smaller parties can properly check the governments power.

My vote is worth .78, my area has been changed a bit so is more marginal than previously. I'm not sure what to do in terms of voting yet.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

Nothing's democratic in a political system. A government with 35% of the vote from an even smaller percentage of the actual population being given almost total power is hardly democratic either. At least proportional representation is an attempt to give as many people as possible roughly what they wanted, rather than a large minority imposing all of their views on the whole country. But I don't see how you can say it's not democratic. It's not absolute democracy, of course, because that's just another way of saying mob rule. But it certainly does a better job of ensuring that everyone has their political views represented in government (as best you can with another person acting on your behalf). I don't think anyone would choose our system if they were designing a constitution from scratch, and the only reason we still have it is because it benefits the two big parties, who are then the only parties ever in a position to change it..

PR won't have everyone's views being represented though unless all the parties come together - if the Tories say get 40% and the Lib Dems 11% and join together 49% of people still remain unrepresented. Now you may argue that that it is better than 60%, but its marginal (especially as for the Lib Dems and Tories to actually be represented the Govt then has to horse trade in exactly the right way that these voters agree with - for example if I vote for the Lib Dems because of their position on student fees and they drop that in return for the Tories dropping Trident - I'm as likely to feel as pissed of as you as you voted Tory because of their strong position on Trident)

You're probably right we've only kept the current system because it represents the two parties with the most voters, but it would be equally right we're only discussing PR because smaller parties think it gives them power.

I don't agree. The single biggest reason for not voting is that your vote doesn't make any difference. There's no greater way of changing that than by having a system where people can vote for the party that best fits their views, and have it count, rather than having to vote for one of the two they think are likely to win their particular seat (and that's if you're lucky enough not to live in one of the many safe seats)...

It's part of the reason I'd agree, but I'll say in a moment why I don't think the answer is PR. But it's probably worth noting that the lowest voter turnout under in the pre-accession EU is Ireland with 73.2 (1945-2002) which has a form of PR. http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/upload/Full_Reprot.pdf*

Culturally Ireland is also the closest country to the UK within Europe.

As for why people don't vote I'd say the British are cynical about politicians because
1) a very free media and probably the most brutal in the world which constantly exposes folibles.
2) The British don't tend to believe in utopia and are extremely cynical about politicians claims that things are going to become fantastic if they're voted in

Interestingly we do of course vote using PR for Europe - if PR made more people vote as there vote counts there should be more voters for EU elections. Instead with a 39.8 difference in percentile points only Sweden has a bigger negative difference (40.6) (though Denmark at 38.9 and Holland with 37) are not far behind (same source as above)

Incidentally, the country closest to pure democracy is Switzerland, with their constant referendums. And they have one of the lowest voter turnouts in the world

It probably is (though US with voting in public officials such as Sheriffs, public works inspectors and Judges probably isn't far behind). My knowledge of Switzerland is low so I can only guess the reason, but I would suspect voter fatigue





* I'm going to fully admit to selective quoting as whilst I would believe the stats are right i don't agree with all (or at least many of the conclusions)

Former Member

I personally dont think that many people in this country would give two hoots about a PR system, simply because as with many politics related issues, a lot of people dont understand, and dont seem to care or want to get involved unless its going wrong.

Which is a shame really.

Former Member

Blair had a big enough majority to do what the hell he wanted.
A hung parliament would produce more grown up politics.