5punk

Dog Pants wrote:I'm bitterly disappointed in the way the system has panned out. It seems like everybody lost.

That's probably closest to what the public feeling is, though. We hate them all, and whoever ends up being the nominal PM will likely be there for less than a year.

It doesn't matter though, we'll still hate them all in a year's time. The whole system is a publicity contest based on who can make the other look the worst. That's not the way I want to elect the country's leadership.

friznit wrote:Seems after all that the Lib Dems welped because most of their tacit supporters still didn't vote for them because of the 'wasted' vote thing. We really should get a referendum on electoral reform narf.

Lib Dems got 4.3% less votes than labour, and ended up with 1/5 of the seats compared.

Reform please.

This. The whole first past the post method is a failure. We need full proportional representation with multiple seats for large constituencies. Or at the very least a run off voting system that allows for true majorities.

So it looks like the Lib Dems are backing the Tories.

I confess I don't fully understand the implications of PR as opposed to FPTP electoral system. Historically the UK has used the latter because it tends to generate a single, clear majority government which can get on with the business of running the country without the squabbling, shady deals and backstabbing that multi-party coalition governments tend to have. Obviously though there is the issue that many people still don't get seats even if they have lots of votes - something that every party is suffering from in this election (arguably the Conservatives stand to lose out more than the Lib Dems ever have: Cons are tantalisingly close to a majority and have a significantly higher percentage of the vote, but will still fail to get enough seats).

PR tends to generate so-called "center-based proportional representation multi-party systems" i.e. a conglomerate of middle of the road splinter groups that ends up being representative of everyone and noone, so it's not all cut and dried.

I imagine we'll be hearing a lot more about this in the near future, so I'm going to do some reading.

The Shutting Downs wrote:So it looks like the Lib Dems are backing the Tories.

Clegg would be committing political suicide if went back on his pre-election promise. If Lib Dems had secured the seats they were expecting that would have maybe given him the confidence to make some power plays, but they didn't so he's going to have to stick to what he said - backing the party who wins the most seats.

Ed: whether this translates into a stable government is anyone's guess and ultimately up to Cameron. If he makes enough concessions to the Liberals he might hold it together, if not I stand by my original estimate: one year until another election.

I think having the Lib Dems tempering the Conservatives could in theory be a good thing. If Clegg horses some of the more contentious issues of the Tories out in favour of some of the more popular Lib Dem policies it could in theory end up a better government. However, this is politics and I don't expect any kind of grace or cooperation.

friznit wrote:Clegg would be committing political suicide if went back on his pre-election promise.

He already changed his mind on that front, not that long ago the lib dem answer to king making was they would back up labour in second. Then that changed. Now they may well go back to the earlier stance of joining labour, a few Scottish labour types and some others to get just in front of the tories.

Regardless, it's a fucking mess.

We must take to the streets! Rise up and reclaim this land!


After I've had lunch and something to eat though. In fact I've got plans this weekend too, so I may have to postpone the revolution.

It's interesting looking at that poll up there and comparing it with the results. Either we're not representative of the population (entirely likely), or a lot of us switched from Lib Dem.

I reckon HMQE2 should burn 'em all. Vote Phillip for President!

I voted for team piss stain, it's just this area is blue, and always has been.

.

But PR will do the job of making it a closer number of seats between parties.

As above, the Lib Dems ended up with 6% less of the votes than Labour, but because the areas they hold are huge, they end up with almost no seats, and very litle sway, even though they run so close to the top two.

The number of seats gained does not equal the number of people who agree with that party, and ends up wih a huge amount of people who do not get proper representation, because they are only 1 seat in scotland as opposed to 10 in london for the same area.

I would point out that this does also have a downside, the % of votes gained by the BNP was higher than the % ganed by the Green Party for one seat, and moe than Plaid Cymru got for thier 3 seats, so under PR they would possibly have more chance of getting in.

I heard on the radio yesterday that there are only 4 other Governments in Europe that are run as a majority Government, all the others are coalitions/minorities. Germany has only had 2 majority Governments since the war (but is currently a coalition), and Greece is one of the remaining majority Governments. It just seems to me that a Government which requires all Bills to be properly debated without the ability for a single party to push it through with a three-line whip would make things somehow work better. The rest of Europe makes it work, and maybe if more people knew that coalitions were actually very common then they wouldn't be so concerned about it.

For PR, whilst it would give people like the BNP a few seats, that's the nature of a properly functioning democracy, and you can't start changing things just to keep certain undesirable groups out. A vehemently as I dislike them, moving the goalposts isn't the way to defeat them.

I agree that they shouldn't be excluded as they have a right to say what they want, but going to PR would be moving the posts to allow them in, not keep them out.

Sorry, yes, I meant that we shouldn't shy away from PR just because it would give them seats. Like it or not, 1.9% of the electorate voted for the BNP, but democracy doesn't let you ignore voters just because they're stupid.

Incidentally, in Alastair Reynold's The Prefect they have a massive system of democracy with every political decision effectively made by a mass referendum. However, the people who voted for what in hindsight was the correct course have their weighting increased, so that those who are consistently correct have votes that count for more than those who aren't. Just an interesting aside!

I like the 'Demarchy' system from Reynolds' work. Everyone has a neural implant that feeds questions about government/policy etc to someone's subconscious. The results are collected and laws are passed based on what the general consensus is. Et voila - democratic anarchy (or direct democracy depending on what you want to call it).

.