BREXIT! BREXIT! BREXIT!

[rainbow]

And do they think people like Rees-Mogg will respect them in the morning?

He's a right bummer, no question.

[Brian Peacock]

LoBloJoBo.png (329.86 KiB) Viewed 1916 times

[rainbow]

Martin Baxter, of Electoral Calculus, told the paper: "With public opinion so divided, a party only needs around 30 per cent support to get a majority at Westminster.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 54861.html

In what sense can this be called a democracy?

[Rum]

That’s the way our system works. We have around 650 constituencies, each of which votes for a local candidate, usually representing a party and its manifesto. If the vote is split enough a candidate can win if say they have 35% of the vote (or less) and the others share the rest of the votes.

If this happens nationally, and it does, you can easily have a government which represents far short of a majority of the population.

There is a plus side of course - at least in the past when politics wasn’t quite as fluid as they seem to be at the moment. The idea was you voted for a manifesto and with a majority, however they got it, the government was able to deliver on it - sometimes anyway.

It’s called first past the post.

[Brian Peacock]

Martin Baxter, of Electoral Calculus, told the paper: "With public opinion so divided, a party only needs around 30 per cent support to get a majority at Westminster.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 54861.html

In what sense can this be called a democracy?

As Rum says, FPTP. The Queen asks the majority party in Parliament to form the government. If that party need to form a coalition in order to have an overall majority that's down to the parties not the Queen - who really doesn't ask anybody anything of any consequence anyway.

Personally I'm in favour of compulsory registration and voting and a STV mix that sees MPs elected locally by popular vote plus an allocation of seats by proportion of the national vote. I think this would downplay ideology, encourage compromise, and seat the national political discourse in the middle of the bell curve. I'm also in favour of a written constitution and the abolition of the Monarchy - and to be fair I'm likely to be disappointed on all three counts for the remainder of my days.

[rainbow]

That’s the way our system works. We have around 650 constituencies, each of which votes for a local candidate, usually representing a party and its manifesto. If the vote is split enough a candidate can win if say they have 35% of the vote (or less) and the others share the rest of the votes.

If this happens nationally, and it does, you can easily have a government which represents far short of a majority of the population.

There is a plus side of course - at least in the past when politics wasn’t quite as fluid as they seem to be at the moment. The idea was you voted for a manifesto and with a majority, however they got it, the government was able to deliver on it - sometimes anyway.

It’s called first past the post.

I do understand how the system works, but I don't know how it can be called democratic. I don't know how much gerrymandering is an issue in the UK, but friends in the US say it can distort the election of representatives quite significantly.

[Brian Peacock]

Gerrymandering is a big issue that isn't really covered here. The Tories under Cameron passed laws to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 (while systematically bloating the House of Lords to over 900 at the same time) and to equalise, as much as possible, the size of constituencies by population. While this might seem laudable when taken at face value the devil is rather in the detail.

Mindful of the fact that urban areas tend to be more socially and economically liberal that rural areas they instituted a boundary commission to redraw the constituency map on the pizza-slice model around towns and cities, where urban wards are extended into the countryside - or rural wards are extended into the cities - to 'balance' the rural and urban vote. Urban areas of course generally contain less registered voters and more people ineligible to vote, as well as tending to turnout less than more wealthy suburban, subrural, and rural areas - which coincidentally tend to vote conservative. It's a blatant attempt to split the urban vote in favour of the right. It's also worth noting that these changes are yet to take full effect.

[Scot Dutchy]

The UK is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. If you are in a "safe seat" your vote has no weight.
There is no automatic registration of voters because nobody has a clue who lives where. As long as the House of Lords exists in its present form there will be no democracy. It was never meant to be democratic. The rich always wanted to maintain control and they do. The country is run by the "old boys club" because to become a senior civil servant you must have the right background and they really run the country. "Yes Minister" was absolutely correct and still is on that score. Harold Wilson was always bitter about the civil service.

Votes are not equal in the UK but that goes for any system run with constituencies and FPTP. Gerrymandering was always and is still rife.

[Brian Peacock]

Scot, the World is run by 'the old boys club'. Haven't you noticed?

[Rum]

Edit: response to the Scottish Dutchman.

As ever your prejudice colours your judgement when it comes to your ex- homeland. The system may have its flaws but most democracies do.

The UK ranks 14th out of 168 or so democracies in terms of ‘democratic index’. The Netherlands is 11th.(sadly, the USA 25th)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

[pErvinalia]

Only the Netherlands is a democracy.

[Scot Dutchy]

The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a UK-based company. Its intention is to measure the state of democracy in 167 countries, of which 166 are sovereign states and 164 are UN member states.

Never mind the definitions.

Full democracies are nations where civil liberties and basic political freedoms are not only respected, but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, an independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and diverse and independent media. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning.[vague][6]

Nice way to make sure your system is covered. A basic for democracy is all votes are equal. A fundamental.

This is a problem with defining democracy but trusting the Economist would be last reference I would use.

This I really have to laugh at when you think it covers America as well:

These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning

Now that covers a multitude of sins.

[Brian Peacock]

I see. So what are you annoyed about exactly? Seems to me you're objecting to a UK-based organisation making direct comparisons to report that the Netherlands is more democratic than the UK but that the UK is more democratic than the US. What should it have said? That the Netherlands is the best country in the World or that the UK is the shittiest? Who is the proper, non-UK-based body to decide on these things?

Sure, the points of comparison on not complete or absolute markers, but they're pretty good comparators. Sure, the list isn't an absolute statement of copper-bottomed fact, but it's a good relative measure given the comparators. What comparators shouldn't be include and which should have been that weren't? How would you define 'democracy' other than it being a society in which "civil liberties and basic political freedoms are not only respected, but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles"?

You're nitpicking for the sake of it. There are many forms of democracy which have been developed within different contingent contexts and in response to varying complexes of competing historical, social, economic, political and conceptual forces. No form of democracy is perfect, but while some may be better than others all are better than the alternative.

[Scot Dutchy]

I object the use of data generated by a company that has a strong component of the Economist in it. A well known right wing rag that supports the British tory party. That also supports the social structures of the UK. A very objective source and I dont think.
How can by any stretch of the imagination can a country as the USA or UK be declared a democracy? You have unelected first chamber that is answerable to no one. It never faces an electorate but yet it can introduce and pass laws. It can also block laws passed in the pseudo elected second chamber.
There is no registration of citizens and no fully up to date electoral role. Where is democracy? Just pseudo words which are used to keep the masses quiet.

Are all votes equal? Is the first chamber elected? Is there talk of gerrymandering? Are citizens being denied the right to register to vote? How are finances arranged for electoral campaigns? These are all basic questions.
In the USA of course is how democratic is the Electoral College. Especially when the manipulation of 100,000 votes is sufficient to decide the next president.

[laklak]

Keeps the Commies down.