Militant students at Warwick

[jean]

But where does that leave the LibDems?

In practice, we have had a two-party system, and the only hope for any third party has been to replace one of the two.

First the Liberal Party managed it, then Labour. Subsequent attempts have failed.

[MrGongGong]

You seem to have so much faith in PR that it would have delivered a different result from FPTP in 2010.

I don't have much faith in it as long as politicians only appeal to self interest and the ridiculous idea that "growth" is always necessary and sustainable.

But it would have been nice to have been offered the choice.

[Richard Barrett]

You seem to have so much faith in PR that it would have delivered a different result from FPTP in 2010.

If the parties had prepared for the election in exactly the same way under PR as they actually did, I dare say the result would have been different. But surely they wouldn't have done, instead basing their appeal to voters on how much influence they'd realistically have in a coalition.

[french frank]

But where does that leave the LibDems?

In practice, we have had a two-party system, and the only hope for any third party has been to replace one of the two.

First the Liberal Party managed it, then Labour. Subsequent attempts have failed.

Exactly. It's not what I'm proposing. I'm saying that whatever system you have, the result will depend on the votes of a hugely disparate electorate and there's only a small chance anyone will get what they want from whoever is in power. That was what Machiavelli said (broadly speaking, that once elected the rulers will be subject to other forces which will then govern their actions). 'Democratic government' as most people conceive it is scarcely possible in large nation states.

[Richard Barrett]

there's only a small chance anyone will get what they want from whoever is in power

Putting it in terms of people "getting what they want" is the problem here I think.

[amateur51]

If the 'repressive government' is legally and democratically elected there is a whole world of a difference between that and a brutal repressive dictatorship where the people have no opportunity of real change.

But you are after revolution not democracy so I wouldn't expect you to agree!

Oh dear, German election 1933 again.

Wake up ChimpMeister

[MrGongGong]

. the fact that the current set-up has had the very recent backing of a huge majority of the electorate could hardly be seen to be more clearly 'democratic'!

I thought I would look this up as it didn't seem right to me.
And you are wrong i'm afraid

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-referendums/Complete-set-of-provisional-turn-out-figures-for-referendum-now-published

If the turnout was 42% then 67.9% of the 42% voted for the status quo, then that's NOT a "huge majority of the electorate" by any means at all as most of the electorate didn't vote.


I think the point is more that IMV politicians should stop pretending that they have the support of the majority of people, the current coalition doesn't have a mandate from the electorate at all BUT they behave as if it was what people voted for. Most people voted for something else, that might be pragmatic BUT it isn't really "democratic".

[P. G. Tipps]

Oh dear, German election 1933 again.

Wake up ChimpMeister

The actual name is 'Tipps' ... none other than one, P. G. Tipps ... and I've been awake since 04.00GMT ... :-)

I think most objective commentators might discount that infamous election on the grounds of associated violence, intimidation, etc.

Of course, there is no reason why a subsequent dictatorship cannot first be voted into power by the people in free and fair elections ... no reason whatsoever!

[french frank]

Putting it in terms of people "getting what they want" is the problem here I think.

I think it is A problem. Though whether I would see it as the same problem as you do is a different matter.

[amateur51]

The actual name is 'Tipps' ... none other than one, P. G. Tipps ... and I've been awake since 04.00GMT ... :-)

I think most objective commentators might discount that infamous election on the grounds of associated violence, intimidation, etc.

Of course, there is no reason why a subsequent dictatorship cannot first be voted into power by the people in free and fair elections ... no reason whatsoever!

True enough, which is why I find your complacency so depressingly familiar.As the good people of Afghanistan and Iraq know to their cost, Western democracy comes at a considerable price sometimes.

I know you're the member formerly known as scottycelt, hence my reluctance to give credence to your new nom de forum. If you can choose a new one, why can't I?

[P. G. Tipps]

I thought I would look this up as it didn't seem right to me.
And you are wrong i'm afraid

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-referendums/Complete-set-of-provisional-turn-out-figures-for-referendum-now-published

If the turnout was 42% then 67.9% of the 42% voted for the status quo, then that's NOT a "huge majority of the electorate" by any means at all as most of the electorate didn't vote..

Yes, you are undeniably correct as the official dictionary definition of 'electorate’ is 'those who are entitled to vote' so my use of the word is inaccurate in this particular instance. I can only apologise to you profusely, MrGongGong ... a salutary lesson in the vital importance of dictionaries, don't you think?

However, those wretches who cannot even be bothered to vote in elections/referenda... naturally I exclude the very old, infirm, etc who are unable to vote despite a postal facility ... voluntarily, if temporarily, disenfranchise themselves and therefore are excluded from the process.

Of those who did vote there was a thumping 2-1 majority in favour of retaining the current system ... is that not an impressive-enough verdict for you, Mr GongGong ... or would you advocate a compulsory voting system?

[P. G. Tipps]

True enough, which is why I find your complacency so depressingly familiar.As the good people of Afghanistan and Iraq know to their cost, Western democracy comes at a considerable price sometimes.

I know you're the member formerly known as scottycelt, hence my reluctance to give credence to your new nom de forum. If you can choose a new one, why can't I?

Not for the first time, you have completely lost me there, amateur51 ...

[amateur51]

Not for the first time, you have completely lost me there, amateur51 ...

Yes but you came back, you lickle scamp!

[MrGongGong]

However, those wretches who cannot even be bothered to vote in elections/referenda... naturally I exclude the very old, infirm, etc who are unable to vote despite a postal facility ... voluntarily, if temporarily, disenfranchise themselves and therefore are excluded from the process.

They would IF there was a "none of the above" option, there isn't.

One of the reasons why so many people voted in the Scottish referendum was that there was a real chance of it actually making a difference.
The fact that there was a majority (of a minority) who voted for the status quo when there wasn't the option of PR (blame mr Clegg for that) means very little.

I think (again and NOT entirely seriously ;-) ) we should make it harder for people to vote, we should also have a system where not everyones vote is worth the same, people who really DO understand things (and I don't mean myself at all) should get extra votes. A phd should give you 4 votes, a pit bull type dog should mean you only get 0.5 votes and David Attenborough should have 10 votes. If you make it worth something people will value it more.

[amateur51]

They would IF there was a "none of the above" option, there isn't.

One of the reasons why so many people voted in the Scottish referendum was that there was a real chance of it actually making a difference.
The fact that there was a majority (of a minority) who voted for the status quo when there wasn't the option of PR (blame mr Clegg for that) means very little.

I think (again and NOT entirely seriously ;-) ) we should make it harder for people to vote, we should also have a system where not everyones vote is worth the same, people who really DO understand things (and I don't mean myself at all) should get extra votes. A phd should give you 4 votes, a pit bull type dog should mean you only get 0.5 votes and David Attenborough should have 10 votes. If you make it worth something people will value it more.

Where do Emily Thornberry, Brooks Newmark and Russell Brand fit into this categorisation?