No.17. Ageist fascism. F*** off.
[Politics] Proportional Representation
- Thread starter Tim Over Whelmed
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
No.17. Ageist fascism. F*** off.
Ballot papers to go out with the following message. You may vote for any one candidate of your choice. You can also choose not to vote, but by doing so you will be counted as in agreement with and supportive of the voting preference of the majority of people who do vote in this election/referendum.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,013
a mix of good bad terrible ideas, this one though - why? what perceived problem does this fix? elected house elects a chairman, why perferable to have an appointee?
The speaker of the house is an MP While in post any subsequent general elections they will stand unposed that's not good democracy for the constiuancy nor is it good in the houses of Parliment as the speaker is after all a member of one of the political parties they could show bias towards or over compensate against their own political allegiances.
That won't work
What about cutting off the goolies?
I can see where you are coming from .......... Which would be somthing they would no longer be able to do!
I agree it's ageist but so to is the current voting age of 18, the current issues we are all labouring with around the 2016 referndum and how long until the effects of a decision are likley to last with many suggesting this could be an issue for the next 30 years, I for example being 59 years of age are very unlikely to see the results of the referendum, my future is now and like many of my age and older it's pretty good my generation enjoyed good training for many free university education steady employment for the most part, cheap travel cheap housing good social and health care again for the most part, and can look forward long retirements on good pensions again for the most part.
So the effects of the referndum will not be only felt this year or the next year but for decades is others futures not mine so why should I have the right to choose it for them
Half Time Pies
Well-known member
Yes, the real reason that our political system has remained the same for as long as it has is that those that hold the power have a vested interest in keeping it that way. That doesn't mean that it is the right way though. Looking at the state of our parliamentary system at the moment, surely now is time to question whether it is fit for purpose.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,013
ending the convention of not opposing the MP in elections would be good. allegiances and bias is a problem for any individual, an appointee doesnt change this. also seems very inconsistent to want an unelected head of House of Common, then abolish the Lords.
Half Time Pies
Well-known member
Our political system summed up by my 7 year old son....
My Son "Daddy why are those people on the radio making those strange shouting noises"
Me "thats a debate in our house of parliament, the prime minister is speaking and if they agree with what she says they will shout 'Yaaaaaay' and if they don't agree they will shout 'Boooooooo'"
My Son "thats a bit stupid"
The solution to more engagement is having a system that people feel actually represents them and where politicians work together for the common good rather than one where a bunch off toffs get drunk in the subsidised bars and then shout at each other from opposing benches/ sides of the room.
My hope is that in the 11 years between now and when my son gets old enough to vote, something will change which means that he doesn't have to do what I have had to do for most of my life and vote tactically for one of two parties based on which one he dislikes the least.
Last edited:
Good point I will think on
- Thread starter
- #151
Given the recent choas, given Labours ability to make any advancement during the chaotic phase we find our selves in and a completely disillusioned and disenfranchised electorate, what would you suggest? Arundel & South Downs will always be Tory, we all know that, so why would anyone choose to vote? If you want the Green Party, Liberals or Labour why bother voting?
Not even the very young know everything.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,747
This.
It can't be right for a quarter of the country to end up being represented by 10 seats.
Plus the idea that a couple of percentage points swing in voting patterns can result in swinging from a huge majority one way to a diametrically opposed one is madness. How can you have any serious long term planning and investment for the country when all plans change every 5 (or less) years. And, surprise, surprise, no one will put long term planning above retaining their seats at the next FPTP election.
I really think that it's about time the politicians in power were made to work in mature coalitions where there had to be agreement to move forward. Because the make up of Government wouldn't change as significantly on tiny movements in votes, they can be held responsible for their actions over a period of time instead of just blaming 'the others'.
I believe it will also see a break up of the ridiculous two conglomerate parties trying to hold their warring factions together before any thought as to what the country wants.
There should be a pro-EU Tory party, an Anti-EU Tory party, a pro-EU Labour party and an anti-EU Labour party. Not recognising this and attempting to try and keep massive numbers of people of completely different political views together in order to win a FPTP election is exactly what got us into this complete f*** up in the first place.
The mother of parliaments ?
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/which-european-countries-use-proportional-representation/
Of the 43 countries most often considered to be within Europe, 40 use some form of proportional representation to elect their MPs.
Last edited:
OK. In response to you and [MENTION=28889]Blue3[/MENTION] and [MENTION=961]Half Time Pies[/MENTION], this is what I think.
My preferred system would involve the following:
A. The franchise
1. In order to vote you should have to attend and pass course on citizenship. The syllabus need not be complicated, but it would involve citizens demonstrating they understand the fundamental differences between, for example, communism, socialism and national socialism, as well as the identity of party leaders and the essence of their policies (I mean by this whether the party is in favour of more or less privatisation/nationalisation). Basically I don't approve of my family's future being put into the hands of people who are either incapable or unwilling to learn about how our society works. I am not a liberal. Note that folk should be required to take the test by themselves, with assistance for the blind, but NOT assistance for those requiring an English language interpreter. Yes, I don't accept that people who do not understand basic English should be allowed to vote, whether they are entitled to British Citizenship or not.
2. The age limit for taking the citizenship test (and thus being eligible to vote) should be the age of consent (when you nominally become legally an adult, except, absurdly, with regard to booze, driving a car and voting)), which is presently 16. A 16 year old passing the test should be able to vote.
3. I think that loss of enfrancisement (qualification to vote), temporarily or permanently, should happen for criminal convictions. I like the idea of linking an earned right to vote with a sense of citizenship. I absolutely cringe when I see the sort of scum we see who have killed a kid while driving uninsured, coming out of court with a fine, smoking a fag, and sticking two fingers up at the press, in the knowledge that next week they are legally allowed to trot along and cast their vote in an election. A voting ban 50% longer than any prison sentence, and a temporary ban for noncustodial convictions is right and proper.
B. Parties
1. I think the laws on the behaviour of parties are reasonable now. We have laws on incitement and this has castrated the likes of the NF.
2. I think that parties have every right to exist and conduct their own affairs as they see fit. If Farrage wants to create a pop-up party with no policies, that's fine. If the Tories want to elect their leader as they just have, fine by me.
3. However, party funding needs better transparency and control. All donations should be disclosed in an online public repository. Then we can see whether labour is truly being bankrolled by a tiny number of unions whose leaders are declared members of other parties such as SWP (my own shop steward is SWP, bless his tiny deluded red cotton socks). Or whether the tories are being bankrolled by one or two oligarchs of dubious provenance. In addition it should be made illegal (if it isn't already) for UK parties to receive money from individuals who are not British Citizens with a right to vote (see above), or from institutions that are not primarily British in ownership, tax hub, and whatever else defines the 'nationality' of a business.
4. I think it would be very useful to have an online repository where all parties can lodge their policy on major issues (topics to be agreed), such as relationship with the UE (ha ha), stance on LGBT issues (marriage, other), immigration, unions, privatisation etc. I think this should be voluntary initially, but the absence of an entry from, say, the Farrage party, will speak volumes. This will encourage parties to identify their core values, review them and have them accessible to the electorate. How many labour voters realise Corbyn's policy is to renationalise most of the stuff Maggie and Major flogged off, for example? An accessible repository where labour's policy can be instantly contrasted with that of other parties would be great. The lack of clarity and eccentricity of the policies of some parties would soon be apparent. Perhaps after 5 years it should be made a compulsory thing for parties to populate this repository, just as businesses must provide a tax return.
C. Voting and representation
1. The present voting process is archaic and open to fraud (including the tribal voting by proxy in parts of the community, where people who can't speak English are 'helped' to vote). This may take a while to fix but this is what I want. We need to quickly move to a system where you register to vote (after qualifying, see above) with iris or finger print recognition. To vote you enter a booth alone (no relative or 'elder' present, but of course a registered carer for anyone disabled would be allowed). There is a computer with the screen inviting you to log on using finger print or iris recognition. The voting options are displayed. You touch the box (oo,er, missus!) next to your candidate(s) of choice, you review your selections, correct if required, then press send.
2. All those qualified to vote should vote, by law (unless mitigated in the same way you would mitigate an inability to appear in court on a date). Voting as decribed above would allow for a voting window of several days which would make it much less problematic wrt illness and appointments. However, there should be an option of NO CANDIDATE. If all the choices are unpalatable then you get to say no to all in a positive way. AND, if no candidate gets the most votes then your region sends no MP to parliament (in a FPTP system, but see below as this may not be the best system).
2. Now the tricky bit, PR, FPTP or what? I personally prefer FPTP, but I could be persuaded to change my view. The key things for me are that we need to have a direct connection with the representatives we elect, so we do at least need to be able to see and read about all the candidates on the slate. Clearly this can be done by having a web page for your 'seat' (sorry I have forgotten the word for parliamentary area) where you can read about the people seeking your vote. I prefer FPTP because I don't like coalitions. I don't like the idea of voting for a party whose policy (writ large on the new web page noted above) may be 'get rid of trident, get rid of uni fees' and the party then becomes part of a coalition where these policies have to be jettisoned in order to create a working government. Now, I can see a day when we become relaxed about the idea that the people we elect will not be able to enact the policies they advertised and we voted for. But not yet. So I don't really see a benefit of PR that outweighs this detriment (that you never get what you voted for).
To pursue this further, if I prefer labour but here in North Kent only tories are ever returned, I could say I am disenfranchised. But that is the wrong word. I still get to vote and my vote is equal to everyone else's, including the Prince of Sittingbourne on the one hand, and the chav who coined my car at the other. Just because the outcome does not suit me is not reason for me to cry foul. I just have to pull up my knickers, make a cup of tea and get on with it. We can't all get the MP we want. And hence we can't all get the government and the laws we want. And I don't see how things could be 'fairer'. If I get more of what I want then the majority in north Kent will get what they don't want (something other than a tory MP). This really is a zero sum equation, and for people who think by having PR they will get more libdem or green MPs and this would be fairer, then what do they actually mean by fairer? Unless there are proportionaltely fewer labour and tory MPs then extra greens and yellows won't make any difference to what laws are passed. Think about what fairness means here. I think it simply boils down to 'I think it isn't fair you get what you want and I don't get what I want so I want a change that will give me what I want, er, which means taking things away from you'. Thus with FPTP, Kent tories get a tory MP who contributes to a tory majority that privatises things. With PR Kent gets 6 tory representatives and two libdems, and in parliament this means the tory majority gets to privatise things. Er, no that doesn't work. So how can we manipulate things so that although 80% of voters vote tory in North Kent, we can send 8 liberals and only 2 tories from North Kent to pariament. You can see where I am headed here...
So to pursue this to its death, some people think that if you look at the national voting, say 15 million for tories, 12 million labour, 8 million liberal, 8 million Farrage, then what you do is divide this up nationally and bring forward MPs from the party pools according to party preference. This would be fair. However it breaks the link between the MP and the constituency (that's the bloody word I was looking for earlier - 'seat' my arse
). OK, so this could be partially resolved if some half way house were created where regions (new constituencies) had their own candidate lists, say 60 candidates in North Kent, up to ten from each party - or maybe more, to be decided) and then voters have up to ten votes to assign to members of that pool according to preference. **** me, no. This may appeal to PPE students, but it leaves me cold. And the outcome? It will be the bloody same - in Kent the Tories would take 8 of 10 'seats', and in the nation we would get what we have now, or a coalition and, yes, a coalition with ****ing frog face Farrage in it. No thanks. Not for me. Gimme FPTP, with all its flaws, better run with better information about policies and better education before you earn the right to vote.
This.
It can't be right for a quarter of the country to end up being represented by 10 seats.
Plus the idea that a couple of percentage points swing in voting patterns can result in swinging from a huge majority one way to a diametrically opposed one is madness. How can you have any serious long term planning and investment for the country when all plans change every 5 (or less) years. And, surprise, surprise, no one will put long term planning above retaining their seats at the next FPTP election.
I really think that it's about time the politicians in power were made to work in mature coalitions where there had to be agreement to move forward. Because the make up of Government wouldn't change as significantly on tiny movements in votes, they can be held responsible for their actions over a period of time instead of just blaming 'the others'.
I believe it will also see a break up of the ridiculous two conglomerate parties trying to hold their warring factions together before any thought as to what the country wants.
There should be a pro-EU Tory party, an Anti-EU Tory party, a pro-EU Labour party and an anti-EU Labour party. Not recognising this and attempting to try and keep massive numbers of people of completely different political views together in order to win a FPTP election is exactly what got us into this complete f*** up in the first place.
The mother of parliaments ?
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/which-european-countries-use-proportional-representation/
Of the 43 countries most often considered to be within Europe, 40 use some form of proportional representation to elect their MPs.
I love your work, but this is naive. 'Made' by whom? We don't have an overseer or god who can make people do things.
Regarding your first point, I presume you mean that a quarter of the electorate voted for a party and only 10 out of 600 seats were won by them in parliament. I presume you feel they deserve a quarter of the seats (i.e., 150). But which? Given they came second or lower in 140 out of 150 of these seats why would it be fair to say to the winner, 'sorry old son, the national picture says that we have to give your seat to Colin over there, say 'hi' to Colin'. No, that's bollocks.
And FFS, it is NEVER 'A quarter of the counry'. It is a quarter of those who bothered to vote. That is about one eight of the electorate. And the electorate does not include those who can't be bothered to register to vote. I would say it is around one tenth of the actual country, not a quarter. AND if a party comes second in 140 seats and first in only ten I personally feel they are not quite there yet, their policies are not quite what they should be, they are not trusted enough. Handing them the balance of power would therefore be wrong. Mad. Immoral.
Mtoto
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2003
- 1,858
Interesting. I'd argue that the precise opposite is the case. Over decades, FPTP erodes the middle ground and when the pendulum swings, it swings a little bit further. If - or rather when - it swings again in the UK, it will be much further left than last time, even if Corbyn gets dumped in the meantime. The Conservatives have also been edging to the right over the last 40 years though it is, of necessity, a broad church. The likes of Grieve, Boles and Heseltine have so little in common with the ERG that they could easily be in different parties - and, with PR, they would be.
PR would absolutely be a shock absorber with regard to someone like Farage. 80 seats gives them representation in Parliament, which is only right given the votes they have received, but 80 seats in a PR parliament is very different to 80 seats in a FPTP parliament. You just cannot look at them as one and the same. Under PR, by definition, the government that forms after an election commands the support of at least 50 per cent of the voters. That has never happened here under FPTP since universal suffrage, even in the Labour landslide in 1945 when they got 47.7pc.
A government in a PR parliament is obliged to form around the centre - centre-left or centre-right yes, but centre is the key. Any proposed coalition that includes an 80-seat party promoting an extremist policy is not going to get over the 50pc line. The centre won't accept it, and a different coalition with 50pc+ will form against it.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,747
I love your work, but this is naive. 'Made' by whom? We don't have an overseer or god who can make people do things.
Regarding your first point, I presume you mean that a quarter of the electorate voted for a party and only 10 out of 600 seats were won by them in parliament. I presume you feel they deserve a quarter of the seats (i.e., 150). But which? Given they came second or lower in 140 out of 150 of these seats why would it be fair to say to the winner, 'sorry old son, the national picture says that we have to give your seat to Colin over there, say 'hi' to Colin'. No, that's bollocks.
And FFS, it is NEVER 'A quarter of the counry'. It is a quarter of those who bothered to vote. That is about one eight of the electorate. And the electorate does not include those who can't be bothered to register to vote. I would say it is around one tenth of the actual country, not a quarter. AND if a party comes second in 140 seats and first in only ten I personally feel they are not quite there yet, their policies are not quite what they should be, they are not trusted enough. Handing them the balance of power would therefore be wrong. Mad. Immoral.
And I was about to say that I liked some of your points above
Proportional representation would mean Colin can't take someone else's seat who has beaten him, as that is a FPTP system. And just like FPTP, it is only ever the proportion of those that have actually voted that can be counted.
What I am advocating is a system that (and I believe that Proportional Representation would) favours smaller parties with more focused political policy over the current situation whereby large parties of hugely varying political views are being held together 'artificially' by the single driving policy of 'winning' a FPTP system regardless of what else happens to the country as a result.
I genuinely believe that there may be parties, with very specific policies for whom, Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson would be the ideal leaders as they would believe in and represent those policies.(OK, only for 5 mins in Johnson's case, but you get the gist).
Governments would then be made up of a coalition of a number of parties (as in most places throughout Europe) and those coalitions would tend to form around 'middle ground' policies as those are the things that can be agreed on. There will be occasions where extremely minor parties will have more 'influence' than their size of vote would normally dictate, but again this influence would be 'managed' to agreed policies by the other larger parties.
It's certainly no worse than 'majority' FPTP governments having completely free reign to do whatever they want on very small majorities.
Anyway, I'm sure I've read somewhere that you FPTPers always revert to hunting in packs and calling all of us Proportional Representationers Thick, Racist and claim we don't know what we are voting for
Last edited:
Mtoto
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2003
- 1,858
And I'll see your Israel and Italy and raise you with Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, which bear a lot more resemblance to the UK in terms of their history, economies, geographical location and so on. The Dutch and Belgians even have constitutional monarchies as well as PR and strike me as being a lot more stable than we are right now.
- Thread starter
- #159
And I was about to say that I liked some of your points above
Proportional representation would mean Colin can't take someone else's seat who has beaten him, as that is a FPTP system. And just like FPTP, it is only ever the proportion of those that have actually voted that can be counted.
What I am advocating is a system that (and I believe that Proportional Representation would) favours smaller parties with more focused political policy over the current situation whereby large parties of hugely varying political views are being held together 'artificially' by the single driving policy of 'winning' a FPTP system regardless of what else happens to the country as a result.
I genuinely believe that there may be parties, with very specific policies for whom, Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson would be the ideal leaders as they would believe in and represent those policies.(OK, only for 5 mins in Johnson's case, but you get the gist).
Governments would then be made up of a coalition of a number of parties (as in most places throughout Europe) and those coalitions would tend to form around 'middle ground' policies as those are the things that can be agreed on. There will be occasions where extremely minor parties will have more 'influence' than their size of vote would normally dictate, but again this influence would be 'managed' to agreed policies by the other larger parties.
It's certainly no worse than 'majority' FPTP governments having completely free reign to do whatever they want on very small majorities.
Anyway, I'm sure I've read somewhere that you FPTPers always revert to hunting in packs and calling all of us Proportional Representationers Thick, Racist and claim we don't know what we are voting for
It's just this for me, whether you a single policy party, extreme left or right you need to be heard and represented nationally based on your national vote. At the moment millions of votes are wasted because FPTP protects the big two.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,013
under PR, 80 seats for UKIP puts them in government with group of liberal-conservative parties on current voting.