At 18 years of age the following statement may well be indicative of somebody who needs to get out more but it nevertheless is something which concerns me going into adulthood: I haven't got a clue who to vote for.
I should tell you that this has nothing to do with ignorance. I follow politics zealously and I see the capacity that the democratic model has for hosting pacified ideological warfare, which makes me wonder: why is the political debate in the UK so exasperatingly dull?
The answer is of course ploddingly simple, that the mythical 'centre ground' is the pursuit of every ambitious leadership. Of course the right and left still exist in academia, but away from the Lecture Theatres and Social Science Library the political options available to those who are not racist or apocalyptical greens are, in reality, just different brands of the same product. Of course there are nuances of difference amongst the red, blue and yellow parliamentary triumvirate but the deafening lack of atmosphere in the political arena is leading to a pandemic of apathy.
So how did this abandonment of distinctiveness come about in our political parties? Much of it has to do with the change in International circumstances. The death of the Soviet Union shattered the credibility of socialism as a practical ideology for governance and fatally weakened the left. New Labour is founded upon the principle that socialism doesn't sell. The Tories' venture to the centre has much to do with the natural growth of liberal morals, making it electorally unrewarding to appear authoritarian on such issues as the family and immigration. It could be argued, therefore, that the battle-lines have been redrawn by precedent and public attitudes - surely no bad feat?
My concern is not where the battle-lines were redrawn but how, over the last decade, they appear to be narrowing rather than re-widening. Left and Right need to be redefined along with all the shaded areas in between. There are major issues which need confronting and in order to achieve the strongest possible outcome there needs to be, at first, copious options which are debated, beaten down and voted upon. That is democracy. But in 21st Century Britain there is a dangerous consensus amongst the political classes which threatens to isolate the people from the elected representatives who exist to serve them.
The political spectrum has contracted and those beholding views which are contrary to the status quo cannot get their voices heard. The political arrangement as it is leaves no platform for those on the right of Cameron's Conservatives, Secularists, Republicans or Eurosceptics. (UKIP has one seat in Westminster out of 646). Having three seemingly interchangeable parties has led to debates on economic, foreign, and social policy being conducted within the confines of perceived moderation whilst ignoring more radical, but potentially preferable alternatives. There is not a party which truly advocates a small state. However unpalatable the unfettered adoption of free market economics may be, it should be a legitimate option to the public, some of whom desire it.
An interventionist foreign policy on the grounds of spreading Human Rights should be what the old left adopts as a primary cause to counter the energy imperialism we have seen under the banner of neo-conservatism. Instead there simply aren't realistic alternatives to how we conduct our international affairs. There are big issues which affect our society and our daily lives which simply are not scrutinised or debated. Globalisation, multiculturalism, the Monarchy, the House of Lords, abortion, faith and independent schools, the penal system and Europe are issues which I have strong views on but cannot relate with any of the political parties. It's not that they have contrary policies but rather that they have none at all or are in agreement with each other, surely signifying the death of democratic choice.
I am not naive. I know that I live in one of the freest democracies in the world and I would not substitute our political system for any other. But it can be improved. Party politics is not the issue as you may have come to think I believe: it is the Parliamentary system. We need not to kill political parties but enliven them and have more of them. Political Careerism is inevitable and the brightest sparks want to be at the top with a powerful party, not a fringe movement. This attitude is positive and avoids intellectual wastage. It needs to be easier for parties to access Westminster, gain credibility and attract heavyweight political figures; the national debate would diversify, intensify and diminish voter apathy.
Proportional Representation is the solution. Perhaps I am overly optimistic; I am aware that it is not a flawless system but it is more democratic and would lead to a vibrant Parliament which is home to alternative views alongside conventional ones. And so what if the BNP get a seat or two? If they won the votes they should get the representation. Parliament is not a liberal club it is the voice of the nation.
*************************
If you would like to write a Guest blog please email me no more than 750 words. I cannot guarantee publication, though!
58 comments:
Fantastic blog post. I disagree with what the chap said but that's the best written blog post i've ever seen.
Suggest you do some more investigation into the realities of politics in those countries that do have PR - apart from anything else, PR is run on the list system, which is more or less totally run by Party hierarchies.
But good on you for having an enquiring mind.
I agree completely with your analysis but despair at the naivete of your conclusion.
You correctly identify that it is currently impossible to put a cigarette paper between the parties and that the Parliamentary system fails to address most of the important issues affecting the country.
That you think that PR with its attendant coalitions of corruptible, compromising politicians is an answer to these problems astonishes me.
The answer to the failure of Parliamentary politics is to replace it with rule by referendum. Let the politicians enact the results or just the civil service.
Democracy consists not in elections but in enacting the will of the people. Until we get hanging, no one can say this country is a democracy rather than what Hailsham called an "elective dictatorship".
For the future, the fault line in politics will be nationalism versus internationalism not left or right.
I have to agree with my old adversary in Chesterfield when I was a young Chairman of the Tory Association, and Tony Benn was the MP. The benefit of the FPTP system is that its relatively easy to remove a Government. It only takes a small amount of voters to change their mind and they are out.
Does PR make Government more representative.. well that depends what you mean by representative. Will it make Government more receptive?
I don't think so.
"energy imperialism"? I'll think you'll find the idea of indigenous populations having a democratic voice in their own land goes all the way back to President Wilson's 14 point plan that was for the most part ignored by the rest of the Allies following the First World War. You see, we wanted the oil in that region for the Royal Navy, old boy. Rocks and glasshouses.
None the less, I could barely string a coherent thought together when I was 18. Well written. Just don't forget to pick up your copy of Nuts. You need to have a balanced education.
Nice essay , gold star , load of bollocks
PR....
1 It removes the MP Constituency link
2 It gives more power, not less , to the centre as no One Party can supply a government
3 It makes Parties more , not les isolated as lists are the be all and end all
4 It tends in Europe to give left of centre fake democracies .This is because the Left Constituency is formed of those who are paid for and those who are paid so much the taxes they pay do not effect them. The group of tax payers at the margin are the core Conservative group and as they sacrifice more PR turns the state into an elected dictator ship predating on the lower middle classes. Under FPTP it is easier for this class to defend itself by organising where they are strong and employing they greater incentive to be poltically active
5 By allowing any old stupid vote for a single issue or nut case cause it infantilises politics . The two Party system has evolved a highly responsive ability to incorporate interest into a manifesto By gathering its Constituency the Party forms these groups into a government and each voter then has to make a grown up choice about which one it dislikes least.
6 There is far more chance for new thinking to actually become Policy under them two party system that disseminated through PR where power eventually resides purely with the managerial class.
Currently Ed , no-one is suggesting anything so stupid . AV systems are being recommended by Labour but that is because under pressure from boundary realignment and the Celtic fringe problem they are thinking of the Armageddon alternative , the end of all democracy ..The answer for small Parties is to become big Parties or to exert influence in a big Party. The only places where that does not work is where the political class are a homogenous group
Examples
1 Death Penalty – Everyone wants it but we cannot have it
2 EU -No-one wants it but we are forced to have it
PR which would absurdly empower a few preening Liberals at the middle is hardly likely to be much of a help is it By the way how did you an eighteen year old and no doubt , golden limbed youth persuade Iain to give you a starring spot ...? No don`t tell me ...eeeooo
I don't define a healthy democracy as one in which a majority of people want other people to be killed.
Anyway, democracy should always be a means to an end, not an end in itself.
A cursory glance at the roll call of chancers and 4th raters currently taking public money in the form of an MSP salary in Holyrood, should be enough to dissuade anyone from adopting the party list system.
That said, what a well written post!
it's funny,the writer makes a lot of sense and then you come to the comments and none of you have answered the rather substantial question he poses.Which is how do you expect people to be invcolved in democracy if their vote is worthless?I live in a Labour stronghold,my vote is meaningless beyond belief,I will not be voting next time.
New Labour got a 50+ seat majority in 2005 with 36% of the vote.Can none of the above posters see that as a problem.We are going into the biggest recession for two generations because our political leaders have walked blindly down the Ponzi path to illusory wealth because none of them wanted to upset middle of the road voters in the 150 constituencies that matter by telling them their house was going to drop in value.
comments that make me feel ill
Judith
'But good on you for having an enquiring mind.'
'but despair at the naivete of your conclusion.'How low will turnout go before you agree with poster.
'It only takes a small amount of voters to change their mind and they are out.'as long as they're in the right constituencies
Why not have AMS instead. It has both FPTP and PR included in it.
You could have the same number of MPs, but the ones elected under FPTP would have larger constituences and voters would get a second ballot paper for the PR MPs elected by party list.
It seems to work in London doesn't it?
If you still have the majority of MPs elected by FPTP then you'll still end up with a pretty stong government. The PR MPs will still mainly be Lab and Con, but with slightly more Lib Dems and a few Greens.
Probably not a great enough change to force a coalition.
"5 By allowing any old stupid vote for a single issue or nut case cause it infantilises politics . The two Party system has evolved a highly responsive ability to incorporate interest into a manifesto By gathering its Constituency the Party forms these groups into a government and each voter then has to make a grown up choice about which one it dislikes least."
This is spot on. It is naive to think there could be or should be a party to represent the exact or even approximate views of every voter. If there was a party that agreed with me on 90% of issues, I acknowledge that it would have maybe 100 members, maybe 1000, still nothing relevant to a whole country.
Democracy is about coalitions of interests, where the people in those coalitions make compromises by prioritising that which is truly important and agreeing to shelve what isn't.
How I would improve our system:
1) Primary elections for MP candidates, so voters in safe constituencies can choose the kind of Tory/Labour candidate they want. This would make individual MPs accountable to their local public and might encourage them to be nearer to their constituencies' political positions.
2) A directly elected Prime Minister, not necessarily with a majority in the Commons. If the Commons could vote against Government proposals without it triggering a general election, some of the worst laws might not have been passed.
3) If you want some PR, and there is an argument for it without a doubt, a second chamber elected on that basis would be a further check and balance on the system.
Ed,
Good post and I agree with you that once distinct blue, yellow and red have tended to coalesce until they are just varied shades of brown. To my mind his is a sign of a political class more concerned about careers and advancment than proper debate.
But I do disagree with your solution. If anything pr would make the situation worse. About a year ago I was discussing politics with an Italian chum and made the usual jibe about sixty governments in fifty years. In all seriousness he replied that far from having sixty governments in fifty years, Italy had actually had one government.
PR meant, he said, that while nominal power shifted between parties, the reality was that the same faces simply shifted from one ministerial position to another in accordance with their party's relative position in an almost permenant coalition. The political class became even more divorced from both the people and principle than it is in modern Britain.
In my opinion, PR might only be an option if there were an elected upper house charged with scrutinising and approving bills passed by the lower. Even then there would have to be all sorts of checks and balances to prevent patronage and careerism.
"The political arrangement as it is leaves no platform for those on the right of Cameron's Conservatives, Secularists, Republicans or Eurosceptics. (UKIP has one seat in Westminster out of 646)."
Good. Next problem?
What we need is to separate the government from our MPs. The MP that is good for me locally may not be the same as what is good for me nationally.
Vote our MPs in, then let those independent MPs form groups that we can vote in for Government.
none of you have answered the rather substantial question he poses. Which is how do you expect people to be involved in democracy if their vote is worthless?I live in a Labour stronghold, my vote is meaningless beyond belief,I will not be voting next time.
The answer is that your vote is never going to mean a lot in a country of 60 million and under PR it would mean nothing at all. I think Primaries in safe seats is a good idea ( Frank Field ) .
New Labour got a 50+ seat majority in 2005 with 36% of the vote.
Under PR you would not be able to get rid of them now we can . PR worries about the middle even more and exclusively. Labour , for example reacted quickly to the evidence they were losing to the BNP by talking tough on immigration. Under PR the same people can ignore you forever.
On the weighting of the current boundaries towards Labour you are quite right but that is different issue .
A very thoughtful and well-written post. While I agree with the need to consider some form of PR (NOT a party list only system, judith, but something like the AMS system used in Scotland and Wales), I don't agree completely with the common political parties are all the same view. Consensus is good. And if the parties are too similar it is chiefly Labour's fault for photocopying Tory policies, especially over the past year. But well done, as a fellow 18 year old I congratulate you.
Also, I am in the process of reading the Power Inquiry report. Do read it.
I shudder to think that LibDems and Nick Clegg will get their hands on the red boxes if PR is prevailed. Ever since in early 1980s when the nine day wonder SDP was collecting protest votes and boy David thundered in a Liberal conference, 'Go back to your constituency and prepare for government!', I lost faith in woolly LibDems who benefit from PR. I hate backroom negotiations after the election when no one party gains majority through PR, and the small rump of them, the tail, wagging the largest party, the dog. Keep the first-past the post, it works and we know who the bunch of culprits are.
When I was young I thought PR would sort out Parliament. But, when we were given our first PR vote (Euro Elections) the parties gave us lists. Ie. the people they wanted in were at the top of the list. And in Labour's case the first named, later repositioned second, had never previously been elected for any position and was listed above the sitting labour MEPs. One can't help but think he had a mate, someone like Mandelson. I destroyed my vote.
So, define your PR system. Lists are worse than the usual system.
'The answer is that your vote is never going to mean a lot in a country of 60 million '
if we all took that attitude.
'Under PR you would not be able to get rid of them now we can '
under PR they wouldn't be in in the first place you numerical illiterate.
'Labour , for example reacted quickly to the evidence they were losing to the BNP by talking tough on immigration'and doing absolutely nothing about it.
if you get 5% of the vote nationally,you should have near enough 5% of the seats in parliament.Inherently nothing will change because the big two are doing very nicely thank you very much out of the current sytem.why would anyone screwing the taxpayer for as much as our MPs are vote themselves out of a job.
arightindividual said...
'Also, I am in the process of reading the Power Inquiry report. Do read it.'
Er, don't bother. It is one of the worst documents of its kind; it cost a great deal of money to come up with half-baked ideas and conclusions based on 'someone told us that...' type of comments. It has been widely criticised and rightly so. It is a good example of how not to undertake research.
'The answer is that your vote is never going to mean a lot in a country of 60 million '
if we all took that attitude.
It’s a fact, are you a child ?
'Under PR you would not be able to get rid of them now we can '
under PR they wouldn't be in in the first place you numerical illiterate.
Yes yes whatever dreadful amalgam of Liberals and Labour that would have been in power would be exceedingly difficult to get out. That at least has been the assumption hence the Scottish Parliament, it did not work out but then nor did the London system which was designed to exclude the Conservatives and nearly did . Why post buffoonish comments of which you are so rightly ashamed you dare not put a name to them? Call yourself shit-for-brains , then we’ll know who it is
See You SFB
Digger misunderstands what makes votes count. Ensuring your vote counts in the election of a single candidate may be at the expense of ensuring that it counts in choosing a government. Also to argue that 5% of the votes cast should equal 5% of the seats in the Commons misses the point that 5% of the seats does not necessarily equal 5% of the negotiating power in the House of Commons. A small party can carry disproportionate, sometimes excessive, negotiating power. And it can be very difficult to dislodge them.
The great strength of the current system in the constituency link. If removed politics would be further removed from the people and people potentially would be less inclined to vote. What is needed is a smaller number of constituency MPs (say around 500) with an additional 100 or so PR elected politicians. This would would mean that everybodies vote would 'count' and would give smaller parties representation in Parliament. Such a system would have its downside, what role would the PR elected MPs play? Would people standing in constituencies also be allowed to appear on a list? Would career politicians see the PR list of their party as an 'easy option'? etc... But I do think it also holds a number of advantages.
Good article I thought.
Good thinking here and I think the right conclusion. You have to chose between governments and democracy and I chose the latter. If it makes things a little less easy for the establishment to stitch up all the better.
And the argument about a lack of link to a constituency is wrong too if you use STV which the Irish manage to make work. Ireland has had radical successful policies and an engaging debate, although I appreciate that the anti-Lisbon sentiment was not reflected in any of the main parties. And they have proper constituencies with a choice of members who a voter could talk to.
The only argument for FPTP is that is gives us a "strong" government. Iraq War and Poll Tax fiascos would indicate that they give an arrogant government which is even then difficult to overturn without resorting to regicide.
So, define your PR system. Lists are worse than the usual system.
Absolutely. The only system even vaguely worth considering is STV. You can argue over constituency sizes, but I would suggest an average of about 4 MPs per constituency, with about 100 constituencies in total. Constituency sizes should be adjustable to match natural boundaries, adjusting the number of MPs to match.
This maintains the constituency link, gives approximately proportional results, and reduces party power by creating contests between candidates from the same party. Lovely system.
Good post, well done.
I particularly agree with you on the point that the absence of 'viable' radical parties has contributed to the move towards the centre ground - the BNP/UKIP/NF/Veritas end of the spectrum are just as influential as the Old Labour/Clause IV/British Communists in terms of the FPTP system. Unlike, I should point out, countries like France and Italy, where the extremes are still popular enough to prevent single-party governments and enforce shifting ruling coalitions. In the UK, the 'big' parties of Left and Right can afford to become more centrist because there's no danger of the radicals stealing their votes at the other end. Arguably that's a good thing in terms of public opinion, in that it's become pretty moderate and mainstream, but as Ed said, the centre-ground of politics is rarely going to come up with radical new policies that are worth implementing...
Points well made but does it really matter much now ?
After all we're to be just regions in the EU and Westminster's role will be to rubber stamp their edicts and generally act in old County Council style.
in response to some of the comments...
judith said... "Suggest you do some more investigation into the realities of politics in those countries that do have PR - apart from anything else, PR is run on the list system, which is more or less totally run by Party hierarchies."
I suggest you do some more investigation yourself. Ireland and Malta have PR without lists; Germany, Hungary, Scotland, etc. only have an element of list PR. One must also distinguish between "closed" lists (where the party decide which candidates are selected) and "open" lists (where a candidate's position on their party list is directly chosen by the electorate). The latter system is used in places like Denmark, and there are few signs of corruption and excessive party influence.
anonymous said... "The answer to the failure of Parliamentary politics is to replace it with rule by referendum. Let the politicians enact the results or just the civil service."
Rule by referendum is a recipe for disaster. Referendums on certain key issues are acceptable ("supra"-political issues, like state sovereignty), but excessive use of referendums opens the way for demagoguery and short-termist bandwagons. See, for example, the controversy surrounding citizenship referendums in Switzerland. Harking back to Athenian democracy is pure romanticism.
jonathan sheppard said... "The benefit of the FPTP system is that its relatively easy to remove a Government. It only takes a small amount of voters to change their mind and they are out."
this is the flipside of being able to elect a government on such little support in the first place.
and finally newmania said...
"1 It removes the MP Constituency link"
depends which form of PR you use -- the single transferable vote (as advocated by the Electoral Reform Society) and the AMS system (as used in Scotland) retain constituency-based MPs
"4 It tends in Europe to give left of centre fake democracies."
it tends in Europe to give left of centre democracies (not fake) because the bits of Europe you are probably referring to are largely left-leaning. On the other hand, if we look at Estonia, which uses List PR, they have consistently elected right-of-centre governments.
"5 By allowing any old stupid vote for a single issue or nut case cause it infantilises politics."
FPTP infantilises politics by encouraging adversarialism. Look at a typical exchange during PMQs and tell me that the Commons isn't a bastion of puerility and boorishness.
the remittance man said... "About a year ago I was discussing politics with an Italian chum and made the usual jibe about sixty governments in fifty years. In all seriousness he replied that far from having sixty governments in fifty years, Italy had actually had one government."
I think Romano Prodi would dispute that. Please also bear in mind that Italy has switched voting system so often (even trying FPTP!) that it is hardly a great example of why ANY system ought to be used. As I said before, PR WILL allow change to happen IF the people vote for it. Governments do get "kicked out" under PR, and coalitions can swing from left to right (look at the Netherlands).
Compulsory 3 yearly parliaments
Abolition of the whip system
I find it amazing that people are using the argument 'it is easy to get rid of governments under our present system'.
With a government elected with a large 66 seat majority by only 2 in 10 of the electorate and only 2 in 6 voters, it is clear it is damn hard to 'get rid' of them.
The Tories survived for 18 long years with never more than 1 in 3 support and it was only when they were truly hated by a overwhelming majority that they were removed. It is clear both Labour and Tory are pretty despised and both are moving further and further away from what the majority want. But this system leaves people with no choice. They have to put up with Labour or put up with the Tories until they can stand no more. They switch between the two because smaller parties need to garner a huge percentage BEFORE it is even worth considering them. Smaller parties will never get the chance to build as the media ignores them - it could take generations for a grass roots movement and who can wait that long?
People talk of PR having closed party lists but there is nothing more closed list than the present situation where party candidates trawl the country for the 80% of seats that are safe. And most of Europe has 'open lists' - in Scandanavia, Spain or in Ireland where they have the single transferable vote.
I could go on...
The present system is truely sick with the institutionalised rigidity long cultivated by the existing players. Labour got about 21.5% of the overall voters at the last election and they WON with a large majority. And the other players don't complain.
PR might have drawbacks but it cannot be worse than what we have already. Probably a lot better.
'I could go on...'
you shoudl,you make sense
'Call yourself shit-for-brains , then we’ll know who it is
See You SFB'
you support FPTP and you reason like that.No wonder we're on opposite sides.
blackacre adopts a rose-tinted view of the operation of STV in Ireland. The system has encouraged excessive localism, with TDs devoting time to their districts (and doing favours for constituents) at the expense of being in the Dail. Ireland has one of the weakest parliaments in Western Europe, with the judiciary variously having to do the job that the legislature should be doing.
It appears from some of the later comments that other contributors also adopt a rather rosy view of how various PR systems operate in other countries. Generally, they fail on grounds of accountability, with governments adopting policies that few if any electors have voted for, certainly fewer voters than in the UK. Post-election deals produce coalitions that enjoy the definitive support of not a single elector.
The problem with the present system is all the major parties can agree on a policy - like being in the EU (since circa 1964) - and so it is difficult to show one's non agreement. You are effectively dis-enfranchised.
UKIP got a large percentage vote under the PR system for the last EU parliamentary elections. What they may get in 2009 is another matter, but it did show serious dissatifaction with the 3 big parties.
If under FPTP in one-party heartlands your vote is worthless, under PR everyone's vote is worthless.
The voting choices will be "Do we have 60 preening beardy Liberal MPs in the Commons holding the two bigger parties to ransom and dictating the whole Government policy based on 15% of the vote, or do we have 100 Lib Dem MPs holding the two bigger etc etc etc on 205 of the vote." Hobson's Choice!
"excessive localism" -- finally a decent criticism of STV. I have a few points, although I accept your argument:
1) if you believe so passionately in the constituency link under FPTP, then why criticise a system of PR that retains it?
2) all systems have their weaknesses. Is this weakness as significant as you make out? Is it really as awful as the repeated election of unpopular governments under FPTP?
3) Are the UK and Ireland comparable? Ireland is a smaller, more rural country, Catholic, with strong local communities, strong family ties (people often inherit political positions from their parents), and relatively high levels of corruption for a northern European country. STV in Britain would involve larger constituencies and more urban communities, where much of the population is transient. Would candidates be able to buy votes in the same way? I suspect people would vote more along party lines.
as for your point about a "rosy view" of PR's functioning in other European countries... it functions extremely well in Scandinavia (where open or semi-open lists are the norm), and it also functions rather effectively in Germany (perhaps a more appropriate comparison) -- in spite of the propaganda about the Grand Coalition selling out the electorate and bla bla bla. That's not to say that things run perfectly, but none of these countries is experiencing anything approaching the Brown debacle.
A good article Ed.
Going thriugh the arguments brought up against PR:
1) There are various PR systems ¬ all of them have a list. The only thing they all have in common is that Parlaiment proportionately represents what we voted for.
A list system did not prevent Margo MacDonald getting re-elected when the SNP apparatchiks wearied of her not being "on message".
Whatever you think of the Scottish Parliament an FPTP system would have initially given 80% of the seats to Labour timeservers with the only possible alternative being an SNP overall majority & instant separation. Does anybody really think either would have run the place better?
2) Does it make it more difficult to remove the government? Well since our government got in with nearly 2/3rds voting against it I don't think so. What it does do is give the public more than 1 alternative to vote for. In Britain if you are stuck with the present incumbents, as the failure of the SDP proves.
3) It dies weaken the constituency link however it greatly strengthens that between the public & their representative. In Britain currently there is hardly a constituency where the majority of constituents voted for their representative. Under PR almost everybody has one. I do not think a geographical link is as important as having a representative who represents you.
No British government since the war has failed to have the majority of people voting against it. How can anybody respect politicians who monopolise power this way?
4) I don't think it makes lobby & government employed groups more powerful. Quite the opposite. Currently to control an MP in a safe constituency, as most of them are, all you need is a small organised group of activists.
5) New thinking is very difficult in the 2 party system because if anybody openly thinks anything out of line the party leader comes under pressure to discipline them (eg Howard Flight) to keep proving they are stuck in the centre ground. By comparison a multi-party system requires that each party at least try to look like they are coming up with something different.
The good government problem with FPTP, from which the others derive, is that it produces what economists call very high barriers to entry to new political movements & hence also to new ideas & to anybody who comes into politics to do something rather than just fill a slot in the machine. The "Thatcher revolution" was partly about making it easier for new entrants to create wealth. Unfortunately it stopped short of reforming government. It is of course always easier to identify faults in others than yourself.
The democracy problem is that people rarely get what they voted for & rarely even feel they have the choice of voting for what they really want.
Disappointed I am afraid I cannot return the favour your PR twiddling is all too familiar. Only a Liberal assumes what works for one country or is indeed relevant for another (or a Politics student)
depends which form of PR you use -- the single transferable vote (as advocated by the Electoral Reform Society) and the AMS system (as used in Scotland) retain constituency-based MPs
On STV that will disproportionately and absurdly favour the centre Party who are equally disliked by both sides but liked by no-one . As the supposed problem is that these away from the centre are effectively disenfranchised this makes an over mighty minority even more over mighty. This of course is the real reason for it and why Liberals like it .As Liberals are now on 16% almost Ming levels I see no reason why the rest of us should change a system we are happy with to suit their purpose. If AMS is the Scottish system then it could hardly be a worse joke , you seriously think that that clown show would be an improvement on what we have seriously ? You have utterly missed the point on lists as opposed to Constituencies which is that each MP has to worry about being individually elected by identifiable people. Identifiable or not , they are immune from real people
"FPTP infantilises politics by encouraging adversarialism"
Dialectic I would call it developing from courts which the first Parliament was and based on the notion that no one has unique access to the truth. PMQs is a tiny part of the national debate and what you propose is removing power another step from people as well as offending every English instinct to detest anyone who says now everyone stop arguing and agree with me.Forget it you will never never never turn your small Party into the most important one by shady back room dealing based on the wonderful example of Estonia , which , as far as I can see is dominated by Liberals anyway
And you are not right that PR does not tend to produce centre left dictatorships . PR leaves out the ability of activists with serious grievance to make a difference. This is what protects the tax payer from the combination of those would rule and those who are paid via the state .
Over my dead body do we ever submit to this and you would be suprised how much one commited person can do to scare his MP. NOW
The idea that changing the voting system will in anyway change the nature of politics is naive in the extreme. It is the insidious spin of centralist powermongers.
The only thing that will change the nature of politics and rejuvenate politics is to radically decentralise power back to the people through devolution and direct democracy. This will mean people should have greater access to their elected representatives to make them more accountable and in turn that will encourage people to reengage.
The only thing PR does is potentially give the Libdems in particular more seats and Labour and the Conservatives less. That's the only reason the Libdems want it and all the rest of the justification for PR is politically motivated gobbledegook!
Neil Craig said -
The only thing they all have in common is that Parlaiment proportionately represents what we voted for.
No it delivers a government that absolutely no-one voted for and it is difficult to organise against it . The only people who favour it do so as a form of gerrymandering and that group , the centrist Liberal would be power brokers have never had a new idea in their lives and even now are following new thinking n the Conservative Party like a lost dog.
Tell what it is that PR would bring into the political sphere that is kept out by FPTP. The death penalty ? Leaving the EU ? These are all very popular but typically would be further than ever from being represented under PR which delivers more power than even now to the centre .
As compromise what about having a partly PR elected House of Lords , that would stop tactical voting and reduce the Liberals to about 7/8% . Then ]no-one at all would want it ?
Happy ?
disappointed: STV does not retain an element of FPTP. AMS contains a FPTP element (though the proportionality depends on the balance between the number of constituencies and additional members). STV is a multi-member system.
Ireland provides the only evidence we have of STV in a Western European nation. In terms of the experience of Scandinavia, it does not deliver accountable systems and can create notable problems in terms of mis-match between elites and voters.
Q: How to increase interest in politics.
A: Make the manifesto a legally enforcible contract. That is to say, if your member of parliament votes for a bill which causes you harm, and is not in the manifesto, (s)he can be sued for damages for breach of contract.
Anonymous said... "disappointed: STV does not retain an element of FPTP. AMS contains a FPTP element (though the proportionality depends on the balance between the number of constituencies and additional members). STV is a multi-member system."
I never said it did, read my comments again more thoroughly. I said that STV retains a constituency link, yes through multi-member constituencies, but that doesn't prevent representatives from engaging with their local electorates.
"Ireland provides the only evidence we have of STV in a Western European nation. In terms of the experience of Scandinavia, it does not deliver accountable systems and can create notable problems in terms of mis-match between elites and voters."
The UK provides the only evidence we have of FPTP in a Western European nation. What's your point? We seem perfectly willing to introduce other reforms that haven't been test-run in other countries, so why the fear about STV? As for Scandinavia, the recent Eurobarometer surveys show extremely high levels of trust in parliament amongst voters... not sure if your argument holds up!
And Newmania, I am neither a Lib Dem nor an elitist liberal. Nor do I think that Estonia is an amazing democracy. I brought up Estonia to show that centre-right parties can dominate PR-elected parliaments. I think that parliaments should be fairly elected. I find it laughable that PR is accused of leading to elite rule, when our parliament is so clearly dominated by a male, middle-class, Oxbridge elite. PR is NOT simply for Lib Dems and other "losers", it has support amongst MPs from all parties, including some Conservatives. It has been the victim of much propaganda, sadly spread by unthinking zealots such as yourself.
Please note that I do not regard PR as the be-all and end-all of politics, nor do I think that any system of PR is "perfect". All electoral systems have weaknesses, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a zealot themselves. But the flaws in FPTP are so glaring that we must reform to enfranchise more voters and allow parliament to reflect more accurately the will of the people. The argument about PR electing governments "that no-one wants" is fatuous -- who elected Gordon Brown's cabinet?
100% wrong.
Our system, SUV (Single Untransferable Vote) in single member constituencies, is the optimum electoral system.
Under PR governments are chosen by political parties after elections. Under our more democratic system, the parties themselves are forced to be enduing coalitions of different political strands and the ELECORATE chooses between these coalitions, knowing which political components of a the government it will be getting.
Another enormous benefit is that our system greatly disdvantages third and minor parties, providing a powerful incentive for them to work within the two party system to achieve any power. This is without banning them altogether as the EU does, but draws a strict line between the two parties competing for government and the unserious ones. It means that Parliament is not demeaned by the overt presence of communists, fascists and greens - another great benefit.
A very perceptive blog. However, what needs to be explained is WHY all three main parties are now so similar. For this explanation we have to go back to the formation of NEW Labour - a confection designed with the aim of gaining power. This conversion was widely accepted by LP members because there was in the 1997 manifesto a commitment to get rid of FPTP - which of course was cynically reneged on under pressure from the party tribalists.
After two decades of Thatcherism the Labour party hierarchy had finally realised that, under first-past-the-post, elections are won or lost by the votes of the floating voters in the marginal seats; and that the views of these floating voters are largely controlled by the right-wing press. So it is not surprising that Tony Blair during the formation of NEW Labour was in close contact with Rupert Murdoch.The result was the ditching of Clause 4 and the considerable theft of Tory clothes: ie the inauguration of so-called "triangulation".
The result has been that the three main parties now crowd together in the marginal seats (the euphemisitically termed "centre ground") to strut their stuff in order to propitiate Murdoch and his floating voter following - to the complete neglect, incidentally, of the safe seats (the new "rotten boroughs") where under FPTP voters can go down to the polling booth, election after election, as a mere ritual, knowing that their vote will not make the slightest difference.
This state of affairs is not going to change until we get rid of the first-past-the-post electoral system for election to Westminster - the only example in the EU of this antediluvian system.
From skimming through other posts to this thread I note the usual ignorant prejudiced references to PR, outstanding of course being the belief that PR means lists, which of course is nonsense. May I recommend that these people spend a little time educating themselves by paying a visit to the web-site of the Electoral Reform Society where amonst other things they will learn about the advantages of the Single Transferable Vote which was established in Northern Ireland by a Tory government in the early seventies and which of course is the system that has been used successfully by the Irish Republic for many years.
that's a nice theory Mr Topcliff, but do the electorate really choose which "enduring coalition" they prefer? Did the electorate "choose" Thatcher or Major or Blair, or was it just a minority of the electorate. I seem to recall that it was a minority of the electorate that voted these regimes in.
The majority of the electorate end up with a government they didn't vote for (the same criticism that is constantly--and incorrectly--levelled at PR).
-- who elected Gordon Brown's cabinet?
What on earth does this mean? I am not zealot as I said a limited PR element of the House of Lords would be ok. You need to get your head out of whatever silly book it has been in and look at what this is really all about . Our democracy was not invented it has grown and we retained when the Europe you so admire was in revolution. This is why ours works so much better.
You are a student are you not ? You`ll learn
Newmania disagreed withnme:
"The only thing they all have in common is that Parlaiment proportionately represents what we voted for.
No it delivers a government that absolutely no-one voted for..."
I phrased it deliberatley. PR, by definition, priduces a PARLIAMENT that proportionately represents what we voted for. The government is formed by that Paliament & will either have majority support or, as in Scotland, be able to function only so long as it can persuade a majority issue by issue. That may not be perfection but I submit it is better than the current system whereby we can be virtually certain of a governmnet a substantial majority voted against.
On the particular issues you raise - the EU & the death penalty:
Under PR we would certainly have a UKIP to rival the LibDems. Much of the problem with the current systemm is that, with centralised parties in a centralised system, discussion of EU membership is discouraged. Under PR we would have that discussion. As an opponent of the EU I think in a free & balanced discussion the majority would come to oppose it.
Regarding the death penalty - if it is really the issue polls say then it would be possible for somebody standing as a death penalty party to get some votes. The problem now is that anybody wishingto vote that way is afraid that by not voting for the most anti-crime party, even though it doesn't really represent their views, you risk letting in the other party. While the argument is true it is extortion of votes so long as the party making it maintains this corrupting system.
Under the present system would you, indeed do you, vote for a party that represents your views on EU membership & the death penalty? If you don't feel you can may i suggest a system that provides greater choice would be an improvement.
Regarding making the Lords a PR chamber - I don't disagree but the inevitable result is that most people would quickly come to feel that the Lords more accurately represented them than the Commons. It would then either become the de facto governing chamber or people would feel that we did not have a real democracy.
What did I mean by "who elected Gordon Brown's cabinet"? I meant that here is a government that was decided behind closed doors. Nobody voted for that government. The individual members of it may well have been elected (although one or two weren't), but it was put together after the event. Yet you consistently assert that this is a distinctive feature of PR. You are wrong.
And no I am not a student, nor am I in love with Europe. I only refer to European countries because it's difficult to talk empirically about electoral systems without bringing up comparative examples. Europe offers a nice range of electoral systems and styles of democracy for this purpose.
I appreciate that the UK has its unique history and political culture; but I don't argue that we ought to copy other countries, rather that we let their experiences guide our own judgments. Avoiding revolution is no mark of a great democracy -- China and Cuba have both succeeded rather well in this regard since Castro and Mao came along.
And yes, you are a zealot. And you would probably be a bully, too, if you had the wherewithal. Why not form an opinion AFTER finding out the facts, instead of regurgitating outdated propaganda?
disappointed writes:
"The majority of the electorate end up with a government they didn't vote for (the same criticism that is constantly--and incorrectly--levelled at PR)."
It is a criticism usually quite correctly levelled at PR systems, since they usually produce a coalition that is the product of post-election as opposed to pre-election bargaining. There are exceptions, as indeed there are in FPTP systems producing single-party government on an absolute msjority of the votes cast.
disappointed: STV is indeed based on multi-member constituencies, but then it can be argued that regional list systems have the same effect. What is the difference between five members elected under STV for one area as opposed to five members elected on a regional list system?
Scandinavia produces high level of trust in most public institutions. This is not a consequence of the structures themselves but rather of the political culture. Systems can be similar, even near-identical, but generate notably different levels of trust. Homogenous societies, as in Scandinavia, tend to generate high levels of trust. Divided societies, such as Belgium, do not.
Disappointed said:
"Did the electorate "choose" Thatcher or Major or Blair, or was it just a minority of the electorate. I seem to recall that it was a minority of the electorate that voted these regimes in".
Your recollection is correct. Both the Thatcher and the Major governments displayed the very worst features of first-past-the-post. Take 1983: in this election Thatcher had an overall majority of 144. However, practically the whole of this majority was due to the fact that the LibSDP got a mere 23 seats whereas under a rational system they should have got around 160 to reflect the fact that they got over a quarter of all votes cast. So we got another minority elective dicatorship. She polled around 40% of votes cast - ie around 60% did NOT vote for her - and had the support of a mere 32% of the total electorate. Yet she was able on this basis to ram her vicious policies down the throats of the majority with the dire cosequences that have followed
In 1992 we got a minority Tory tax-cutting elective dictatorship despite what the majority of the electorate had voted for. Both Labour and the LibDems had in their manifestos proposals for modest tax increases to improve services . These two left-of-centre parties together had 3.5 million more votes than the Tories which were just not fairly represented in Parliament. Incidentally for much of its miserable life this elective dictatorship had to have the support of a particularly undesirable small party the UUP - so much for the vaunted "stable" government about which we hear so much from the FPTP anoraks.(In any cse how can "stable" government be justified if it is the WRONG government)? Moreover we should not forget that this was the elective dictatorship that effected the doctrinaire theft from the public of British Rail to hand it to their city friends at knock-down prices to produce a rail network that is still the laughing stock of Europe.
Buckley you are wrong to zero in on just the Thatcher & major governments as minority ones. EVERY government since WW2 has been supported only by a minority.
No wonder people have so little respect for politicians.
What a shame so many of Ed Jones’s critics, most of whom are probably old enough to know better, can write so much ignorant drivel! Many assume that proportional voting systems must be list systems, but that is simply not true. One critic wrote, “The benefit of the FPTP system is that its [sic] relatively easy to remove a Government. It only takes a small amount [sic] of voters to change their mind and they are out.” At least that has the merit of accuracy, except that, far from being a benefit, it is one of the most damning condemnations of FPTP. It means that a small number of swing voters in marginal constituencies can choose the Government while the vast majority of voters have no effect whatsoever. The minority who make the decision may not even represent the views of the majority.
Now I would like to comment on one phrase in Ed Jones’s excellent blog on the need for proportional representation, “We need not to kill political parties but enliven them and have more of them”.
I fully agree we need not kill political parties. In fact, I would go further; we must not kill them because, faulty though they seem to be, it would be undemocratic but that does not mean we should strive to keep them alive. We need a neutral voting system that does not encourage or hinder political parties over independents or vice versa. Then the voters can decide whether to kill or sustain parties.
I am also not so sure about enlivening them and having more of them. Political parties usually have financial and organizational advantages over independents, but a truly democratic voting system should be neutral, not only between one party and another but between parties and independents. If, given a neutral voting system, voters choose to enliven political parties and have more of them, so be it but let us not set out to do that.
The most neutral proportional voting system that would empower voters themselves to decide what to do about political parties is not a list system but the Single Transferable Vote (STV).
ANTHONY TUFFIN.
Editor, www.stvAction.org.uk
Anthony Tuffin sums up the situation admirably. The ignorance of the majority of the population about the way we elect our "representatives" is astonishing. This applies to people who should at least have some elementary understanding of the vaious systems of PR. This includes politicians. In an e-mail exchange with an ex-minister about electoral reform this ex-minister (who in this context had better remain un-named) told me he favoured AV. He said he was completely against STV because he was against list systems! When I explained that AV WAS STV but in single-member constituencies ( or for single appointments) and that both were quota systems he did not change his mind (STV for him is still a list system)
Of course much of this ignorance amongst politicians is feigned and they advance all sorts of phoney arguments in favour of FPTP (Jack Straw is in the lead!) They want to hang onto FPTP because they believe they have a vested interest in doing so - hence the cynical abandonment by NEW Labour of the 1997 election PR undertakings. Perhaps - now it is too late - with the prospect of landing, in much reduced numbers, back on the opposition benches, they are pondering their short-sighted stupidity.
In connexion with Anthony Tuffin’s post it is perhaps relevant to comment that political parties are - however one may deplore some of them - inevitable. It would be quite impossible to get rid of them in a democracy (even one so imperfect as ours) . One final comment: there is in the nature of things no such thing as a perfect electoral system and campaigners do not claim that there is. But what is certain is that FPTP is clearly the worst of the lot, which perhaps explains the fact that the Westminster Parliament is the only legislature in the EU for which the system is still used.
Absolutely brilliant post guys, been following your blog for 3 days now and i should say i am starting to like your post. and now how do i subscribe to your blog?
windows activation
Post a Comment