Democracy Doesn't Work

[Gordon EF]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

It's a bit surprising how many on the far right and left are in favour of PR instead of FPTP. Only if you'd be happy with a centrist compromise should you want PR. 

Depends who the centrists are compromising with. FPTP is likely to lead to largely centrist parties triangulating policies to secure majorities. If a centre ground party won but didn't get a majority, they might have to do a deal with a smaller party further from the centre and at least they'd wield some influence.

[Fullerene]

1 minute ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

I know its more common but its also a very imperfect system that isn't guaranteed to lead to good governance and gives a voice to extremist views in a way FPTP doesn't.

FPTP has led to worse.

Regarding extremism, you can set a threshold.

Also Farage has no MPs yet enormous influence because support for UKIP can seriously undermine the possibility of Tories winning seats in the volatile arena that is FPTP.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

1 minute ago, MixuFruit said:

It just doesn't though.

It does that's a well established fact. A party like UKIP would definitely have got seats under PR, no chance under FPTP. History is littered with examples of this.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

2 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

FPTP has led to worse.

Regarding extremism, you can set a threshold.

Also Farage has no MPs yet enormous influence because support for UKIP can seriously undermine the possibility of Tories winning seats in the volatile arena that is FPTP.

That's a good point.

I actually support PR btw but its far from a panacea.  Or PR first chamber FPTP second chamber something like that.

Anyway, they say UK general elections are actually typically decided by about 11-13 thousand voters in about ten swing seats. That's not in each seat, that's in total.  The rest they can pretty much predict.  That's why the Tories were so spooked by UKIP.

[Fullerene]

I am not that bothered if some seats had been UKIP instead of Tory.  Not much difference IMO.

It is like being asked to name my favourite tropical disease.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

2 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

It's the opposite of the conclusion of that paper I linked.

Brexit happened *because* UKIP were kept out by FPTP. Our Westminster government *is* extremist.

Its political orthodoxy, PR does give a voice to extremist parties.  Look at France, Holland etc.  Its happened everywhere.

Or government is extremist but that's not a reflection one way or the other on FPTP.  They would still be our government under PR, just would need support from probably the Lib Dems.  Or UKIP who might have enough seats to get them over the line.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

2 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

France doesnt do PR.

Look, saying PR gives a voice to extremist parties is the least controversial statement in the history of political study. I have a masters in this, it just does. Its just a fact, there's no argument to be had, its statistically guaranteed. If you get say 8% in a FPTP system you're getting no seats, or 4% or whatever. In PR you're getting seats. That's just a fact. 

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

Just now, MixuFruit said:

That research contradicts your masters unless you have peer reviewed work of your own you'd like to share with us?

Actually I do

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248944263_Proportional_Representation_and_the_Fortunes_of_Right-Wing_Extremist_Parties

 

I missed your article. I'm sure its a great article. You can find articles saying whatever you want, there will be hundreds backing up your point. However, among political scientists the accepted consensus is PR gives more scope for extremist views to arise, simply because it does.

There are examples all over the world all the time from present day and the past. Its not in the slightest bit controversial, its just an arithmetical inevitability.

I think this is a bit of a sideline anyway and I apologise for being snidey, I just can't help myself. 

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

I mean think about it.  You start the mad mental raving loony party, stand in a national election, there are a small number of total bams out there who think you're great, you get 3%. In PR you're going to be represented in parliament most likely, in FPTP you're definitely not. There's nothing remotely controversial about that statement, its just an arithmetical fact. 

Though I do support PR as I said, I just thought I'd point out a couple of the most commonly cited weaknesses of it.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

Just now, MixuFruit said:

#1 you are too young to have written this

#2 you didn't even read the abstract you just posted the first thing you could find with your google search

 

I didn't suggest I wrote it, I googled an article same as you to illustrate a point.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

Just now, MixuFruit said:

#1 you are too young to have written this

#2 you didn't even read the abstract you just posted the first thing you could find with your google search

 

Its beyond playing semantics to argue whether giving extremist parties legislative representation actually leads to a rise in extremism or not, and really beside the point we're arguing here.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

I mean look, three seconds, read one sentence

https://www.theweek.co.uk/22271/proportional-representation-the-pros-and-cons

If the 2015 UK GE was held under PR UKIP would have been the third largest party. There you go, that's what PR would look like and what it gives rise to. So it isn't that big an improvement on anything, its just more democratic, but that doesn't inevitably mean better government.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

1 minute ago, MixuFruit said:

Well what are you arguing? That minority interest parties get into PR systems and this doesn't seem to cause any actual implementation of extremist policy, and this is a weakness?

I didn't say that doesn't cause any implementation of extremist policy, your article said that could potentially be inferred from its findings, which were inconclusive on that matter. A look around the world would suggest otherwise, Holland being a good example. 

[SANTAN]

4 hours ago, Dunfermline Don said:

The U.K. and US didn’t get what they voted for!
Only 43% voted Tory but they got an 80 seat majority and Trump actually lost the popular vote in 2016 but only won because of the electoral college.
It is the electoral system that need fixed in these countries.
You could also ask how you can have a true democracy when the media and means of informing the public are held by a few mega rich.

Decent post overall I always find it amusing how many people lament the media and argue over how much of a negative impact in can have whilst also saying that they themselves are immune and it's only the dumbest that are susceptible to their tricks. (Not saying you did that at all)

[oneteaminglasgow]

What exactly is your masters in, @Carnoustie Young Guvnor?

[Fullerene]

2 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Decent post overall I always find it amusing how many people lament the media and argue over how much of a negative impact in can have whilst also saying that they themselves are immune and it's only the dumbest that are susceptible to their tricks. (Not saying you did that at all)

It is not the dumbest.  It is the ignorant and I do not mean that as an insult.

The media have little sway on those issues where I have a strong opinion but enormous sway on issues where I have no opinion at all.  That is the same for everyone.

That is why political parties do campaigning - to sway you on something you haven't really thought about. 

For example I remember a time when nobody had much of an opinion about the EU.  Now it is different.  With millions saying "we have to get out".

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

6 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

This is such a myopic interpretation.

If UKIP couldn't get a look in at FPTP elections, why were millions of people wasting their votes on them? UKIP became very popular because they represented a point of view that was repressed in mainstream parties. If they had always been given a fair bite of the apple, I think that some of their less terrible policy aims probably would have been implemented, and brexit would have been averted.

That's conjecture on your part.  You have no basis to presume to know the reasoning of three million people.

Look what happens. In a country like the UK, 3% of the vote, less than a million votes, would get you about 20 seats in WM under PR. You now have a voice. Maybe you increase it to 5% next time you get 30 odd seats. Respectability, a regular TV presence, a voice.  Under FPTP you don't get any of that with your 3 or 5%.  I'm not saying that's a better outcome, its just true.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

8 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

What exactly is your masters in, @Carnoustie Young Guvnor?

International Relations

[sparky88]

1 minute ago, MixuFruit said:

This is such a myopic interpretation.

If UKIP couldn't get a look in at FPTP elections, why were millions of people wasting their votes on them? UKIP became very popular because they represented a point of view that was repressed in mainstream parties. If they had always been given a fair bite of the apple, I think that some of their less terrible policy aims probably would have been implemented, and brexit would have been averted.

Agreed. It's too simplistic to say that FPTP stops extremist parties being elected. What FPTP does is create gigantic parties full of different factions -those extreme points of view are hiding within those large parties. 

Take the BNP. There's now quite a few BNP policies adopted by the Tories but the BNP is dead as an electoral entity. Farage put a blokey face to these policies, called his party  UKIP/Brexit Party then basically gifted the Tories their 80 seat majority in 2019. As if to prove this point, former UKIP councillors have become current Tory MPs.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

3 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

It is not the dumbest.  It is the ignorant and I do not mean that as an insult.

The media have little sway on those issues where I have a strong opinion but enormous sway on issues where I have no opinion at all.  That is the same for everyone.

That is why political parties do campaigning - to sway you on something you haven't really thought about. 

For example I remember a time when nobody had much of an opinion about the EU.  Now it is different.  With millions saying "we have to get out".

That's so true, prior to about 2015 nobody ever moaned about the EU.  You just didn't hear it mentioned at all except the occasional farmer or fisherman.  That was created by the right wing media, with incredible success.