"Democracy" is rather over rated don't you think?
-
-
-
The system mentioned by Mr Tipps whom I quoted in that post. The electoral system?Originally posted by David-G View PostIt isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
What referendum? We've never had one that invited us to choose PR.Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View PostComment
-
-
No problem ...Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
Go right ahead and petition parliament like ahinton suggests for a binding referendum on a PR v FPTP system.
As a true democrat, I'd be completely happy with that!Comment
-
Not at all ... but the likely 'alternatives' most certainly are!Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostComment
-
-
-
I expect many people support it too. I certainly do.Originally posted by french frank View PostComment
-
Blindness to reality is much, much more dangerous ...Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostComment
-
But FPTP is iniquitous. Each election highlights this to a greater or lesser extent. In the past, it was the Liberals/Lib-Dems who suffered, thumped by Labour and Conservatives, while achieving second place in a large number of constituencies - lots of votes, but vey few seats.Originally posted by David-G View Post
Now UKIP and the Greens are suffering in the same way.
At the same time, the Conservatives have a majority of seats over all other parties, having polled 34% of the votes. In 1997, Labour had an absolutely huge overall majority, but still achieved a minority vote (43%). I almost felt sorry for the Conservatives, who had polled 31% but had only 161 seats.
When Harold Wilson beat Ted Heath for the first time, he did so with fewer votes than the Conservatives, but won more seats.
It's almost a joke, except that it's really rather serious.Comment
-
-
I have been following this thread since the election result was announced: it has been less enlightening than I hoped. Some members work very hard to make their viewpoint plain, but many others are content to offer pithy remarks that add little of real value, as if they hold the secret to good governance but are determined to keep it to themselves (implying it is too radical or too complex for general consumption). There is clearly a consensus that the Tories’ ‘victory’ is to be regretted, but very little indication of which party should have benefited from those 12 million Tory votes if the public were a less ignorant bunch. And so discussion has turned to ‘fairer’ voting systems – despite the obvious fact that PR, of whatever type, can deliver only compromises of declared manifestos (“compromises” in this context being in fact a euphemism for “broken promises” – as Nick Clegg can testify).
My point: is technology not reaching a stage where a full-blooded plebiscite can be invoked for all major governmental decisions, as almost happens in Switzerland? We are all used to NINs and PINs and the like, and most such transactions are secure. So could we not invite the Great British Public to click a digital button to vote Yes or No over..... well, the likes of tax changes, PFI, the invasion of Iraq, or anything from gay marriage to Brexit? The Commons would then debate, not so much the issue itself, as the framing of the question; voting would have to occur within a given time-frame (24 hrs?) and would be binding. Failure to vote would indicate neutrality on the issue.
This would surely be ‘democratic’ – but would it work to the general good? I’m inclined to think not: it would stultify decision-making and result in impossible self-contradictions....... eg. vastly more to be spent on NHS, defence, disability benefits, and education, but with no increase in taxation or borrowing. Hmm.
My inference from this scenario? Democracy, whether total or proportional, is of limited efficacy. FPTP, for all its acknowledged unfairness (“life isn’t fair”) is the most likely to deliver something like joined-up government with a sense of mission. If, after five years, it is judged a failure, it can be dismissed. If FPTP delivers a coalition, as we have seen, then government continues apace but the most ‘compromised’ partner is punished. But a numerically representative parliament is not guaranteed to provide governance in the national interest; coalitions tend to be bitty, half-hearted affairs. Consider Belgium. Consider what Nicola might have contrived.
Incidentally, I hugely enjoy the irony when those who deplore the outcome of the latest election still favour an elected Upper House and decry our retaining of an hereditary Head of State. To me, it suggests thinking that is muddled, to say the least. Voting is unpredictable, but predictability has its own value.Last edited by decantor; 23-05-15, 03:09.Comment
-
Where did I suggest any such thing? I certainy wouldn't be against the idea in principle, but you seem to forget that, although like others here I believe that FPTP's had is day and needs to be replaced with something far fairer, I am not sure which alternative system would be the best one to replace it. I would not be inclined to petition anyone AGAINST the continued use of FPTP until and unless I could be sure of whch alternative system I'd want to petition FOR!Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View PostComment
Comment