18 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadComparing the UK to its neighbours, there is "full" PR in Holland like I said. Belgium uses PR with a minimum required popular vote (I think it's 5% ). Denmark uses PR with a minimum popular vote of 2%. Germany uses a 50/50 mix of FPTP constituencies and PR. Ireland uses single transferrable vote in multi-seat constituencies. France elects a president using a two-round FPTP system. So it appears that when comparing the UK to its neighbours, only France uses a "full" FPTP system.
I dont have time to download and read it. All I wanted to know was whether any countries have a system where the seats statistically match the number of votes and what the systems in the UKs progressive neighbor's (that you so admire) is.
You are clearly criticizing the UKs political system as being worse than some others, so I want to know what those others do. Is that too much to ask without getting a link?
18 May 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere you go....... notice the turnout figures. For those who want more involvement by the public in politics , FPTP fairs very badly.
I dont have time to download and read it. All I wanted to know was whether any countries have a system where the seats statistically match the number of votes and what the systems in the UKs progressive neighbor's (that you so admire) is.
You are clearly criticizing the UKs political system as being worse than some others, so I want to know what those others do. Is that too much to ask without getting a link?
Country Last Turnout Electoral
Election System
Australia Nov’07 94.8% AV – Single member districts (CV)
Malta Mar’08 93.3% STV – 5 member, compensated
Belgium Jun’07 91.1% List PR – regional, compensated (CV)
Luxembourg Jun’04 90.0% List PR – regional, open (CV)
Cyprus May’06 89.0% List PR
Chile Dec’05 87.7% List PR – two member districts
Denmark Feb’05 84.5% List PR – local, compensated
Turkey Jul’07 84.2% List PR – 10% threshold
Sweden Sep’06 82.0% List PR – local, compensated
Italy Apr’08 80.5% List PR – win bonus
Netherlands Nov’06 80.4% List PR – national
Germany Sep’05 77.7% MMP – national compensation
Norway Sep’06 77.1% List PR
South Africa Apr’04 76.7% List PR – half regional, half national
Spain Mar’08 75.3% List PR – local, uncompensated
Austria Oct’06 74.2% List PR – regional, compensated
Greece Mar’07 74.1% List PR – win bonus, open
Japan Sep’05 67.5% MMM – Regional PR seats
Ireland May’07 67.0% STV – 3’5 member
Finland Mar’07 65.0% List PR – regional, open
Portugal Feb’05 65.0% List PR – regional, closed
Canada Jan’06 64.7% FPTP – Single member districts
Czech Republic Jun’06 64.5% List PR
Hungary Apr’06 64.4% MMP’ two rounds, national PR
New Zealand Sep’05 61.6% MMP – national compensation
UK May’05 61.3% FPTP – Single member
France Jun’07 60.4% Two ballot, single member
Poland Oct’07 53.9% List PR
USA Nov’06 36.8% FPTP – Single member districts
(CV) Compulsory voting
18 May 10
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'm afraid I know next to nothing about political systems. What do PR, and FPTP stand for? (and AV and STV from knightmeisters list).
Comparing the UK to its neighbours, there is "full" PR in Holland like I said. Belgium uses PR with a minimum required popular vote (I think it's 5% ). Denmark uses PR with a minimum popular vote of 2%. Germany uses a 50/50 mix of FPTP constituencies and PR. Ireland uses single transferrable vote in multi-seat constituencies. France elects a president u ...[text shortened]... ppears that when comparing the UK to its neighbours, only France uses a "full" FPTP system.
How does the percentage of votes compare to the percentage of seats in Holland?
In Zambia, we elect members of parliament in the various districts, and separately elect the president for the whole country. I think the president also gets to appoint a few members of parliament.
Last I heard, some people were trying to change the constitution to require a majority vote for president.
I do know that the current ruling party has been successful largely because of a divided opposition ie it does not have a clear majority of votes.
From my observations of the Zambian system, the party system has serious flaws because most MPs are elected by party not on personal merit.
18 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadFPTP = First Past the Post. In each seat, everybody has one vote. The person who has the most votes wins. According to Wikipedia Zambia uses FPTP. It's pretty common.
I'm afraid I know next to nothing about political systems. What do PR, and FPTP stand for?
How does the percentage of votes compare to the percentage of seats in Holland?
In Zambia, we elect members of parliament in the various districts, and separately elect the president for the whole country. I think the president also gets to appoint a few members ...[text shortened]... ccessful largely because of a divided opposition ie it does not have a clear majority of votes.
PR = Proportional Representation. That isn't an electoral system as such. With "pure" PR the percentage of seats equals the percentage of votes (subject to rounding).
In practise PR is used to refer to a range of different systems, some of which are "more proportional" than others. The Netherlands uses a very (but not quite perfectly) proportional system. I don't think they separate into districts for their national election, which makes that easier.
Your last point is a particular weakness of some of the more proportional systems - those that use a "party list". In those cases you vote for a party, and have no control over which individuals get elected. Whereas in FPTP you're voting for a specific individual (though obviously lots of people will just vote by party). All systems have their own strengths and weaknesses.
18 May 10
Originally posted by mtthwI don't know enough about other PR systems to comment on them, but in the Netherlands there is a system called "preferential voting". There are several "party lists" like you say, but instead of voting for a particular party, you vote for a person on the party list. Most people tend to just vote for the first person on the party list (the party leader, or "fraction chairman" ), but you can also vote for a different person. If enough people vote for a certain person, they can gain a seat at the cost of someone higher on the list, but with less preferential votes. So let's say a party gets 5% of the vote, which would normally get them 7 seats. The tenth person on the party list would normally not get into parliament, but if this person gets a high enough (I'm not sure how high is "high enough", but it happens frequently enough) number of preferential votes, this person will gain a parliament seat at the cost of the 7th person on the party list.
FPTP = First Past the Post. In each seat, everybody has one vote. The person who has the most votes wins. According to Wikipedia Zambia uses FPTP. It's pretty common.
PR = Proportional Representation. That isn't an electoral system as such. With "pure" PR the percentage of seats equals the percentage of votes (subject to rounding).
In practise PR i ...[text shortened]... people will just vote by party). All systems have their own strengths and weaknesses.
18 May 10
Originally posted by mtthwAll systems have their own strengths and weaknesses.
FPTP = First Past the Post. In each seat, everybody has one vote. The person who has the most votes wins. According to Wikipedia Zambia uses FPTP. It's pretty common.
PR = Proportional Representation. That isn't an electoral system as such. With "pure" PR the percentage of seats equals the percentage of votes (subject to rounding).
In practise PR i ...[text shortened]... people will just vote by party). All systems have their own strengths and weaknesses.
----mtthw---------------
This is true , however , some systems have more inherent and serious flaws than others. FPTP is a very flawed system compared to PR.
1) It produces governments that rule on a minority vote of the population and often produce governments that had less votes than another party overall.
2) It squeezes out any third voice regardless of how significant and popular that voice is and also excludes significant minority parties from taking part in government , meaning that parliament only represents mainstream voices.
3) It creates a monopoly or cartel betwen the two big parties who won't change the system because it suits them.
4) It means that the majority of votes cast don't make a difference and hands power to a very few swing voters in marginals
5) It promotes tactical voting where poeople feel they cannot vote for who they like and vote to keep the tories/Labour out.
6) Virtually extinguishes any chance of new parties or new political movements breaking through eg Green party.
7) Destroys consensus politics where parties have to create coalitions and talk to each other.
8) Creates "back and forth" politics where one party comes in and trashes what the other one did , and then the other regroups and does the same.
9) Produces apathy and lack of choice and involvement in voters - FPTP systems have appaling turnouts.
Need I say more? It's an abominable system and the only reason why we pay any respect to it at all is because it's been around so long.
18 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterOh, I don't like it either. But for balance: any system that tends not to provide majority governments gives excessive power to the smaller parties.
All systems have their own strengths and weaknesses.
----mtthw---------------
This is true , however , some systems have more inherent and serious flaws than others. FPTP is a very flawed system compared to PR.
[...snipped...]
Witness the way the Lib Dems pretty much controlled what government we had. Now, I completely agree that they should have far more seats than they have. But in a hypothetical case where they hadn't been shafted by the system, they'd still have had that influence.
Now imagine a situation where instead of the cuddly LibDems it was UKIP, or worse, holding the balance.
Supporters of FPTP tend to support it because "it gives strong government". Now, I happen to think that's a rubbish argument, but there are plenty of people who support it for reasons other than the length of time it's been around.
Anyway, as I said, "PR" isn't a system. You have to decide which of the many systems that are "more" PR than FPTP that you want.
18 May 10
Originally posted by mtthwIt is definitely true that FPTP systems tend to provide more stable governments than "more PR" ones.
Oh, I don't like it either. But for balance: any system that tends not to provide majority governments gives excessive power to the smaller parties.
Witness the way the Lib Dems pretty much controlled what government we had. Now, I completely agree that they should have far more seats than they have. But in a hypothetical case where they hadn't been sh ...[text shortened]... have to decide which of the many systems that are "more" PR than FPTP that you want.
18 May 10
2 edits
Thanks for the explanations, I'm learning a lot.
Do any major governments use any system other than a 'party' one?
In Zambia we used to have a 'One party state' (until 1990) which I thought was in some ways more democratic because you voted for the person not the party. I didn't like the idea that they held onto the word 'party' and essentially excluded some people. I think China is similar in some ways but don't know much about their system either.
The big flaw with our 'one party' system was that we didn't have any choice for president - it was either 'yes' or 'no'.
But I feel the same way about many current systems where you have a choice of candidate A from party X and candidate B from party Y. I saw you mentioned a system where you have multiple candidates from each party and that sounded much more sensible.
My mum used to be in local politics. She was a councilor for a while, and joined a party (rather than standing as an independent) in order to get votes - even though she didn't agree with all that parties policies.
18 May 10
Originally posted by mtthwWitness the way the Lib Dems pretty much controlled what government we had. Now, I completely agree that they should have far more seats than they have. But in a hypothetical case where they hadn't been shafted by the system, they'd still have had that influence.
Oh, I don't like it either. But for balance: any system that tends not to provide majority governments gives excessive power to the smaller parties.
Witness the way the Lib Dems pretty much controlled what government we had. Now, I completely agree that they should have far more seats than they have. But in a hypothetical case where they hadn't been sh ...[text shortened]... have to decide which of the many systems that are "more" PR than FPTP that you want.
-------------------------------mtthw------------------------------------
Yes , but think about how it actually works . The Lib Dems had to play their cards very carefully or risk the wrath of the electorate. In PR , minor parties who overplay their hand tend to suffer with the voters so the system self regulates. In the end the Lib Dems were a minority party (in seats) that formed a more representative government than there has been in this country for a long time. They also respected the fact that the Tories were the larger party in the cabinet and in the policies. I say this as a Labour voter in this election (ironically).
In any case PR would produce more smaller parties and more options for the big parties. In your UKIP example , PR would also give a lot of seats to the Greens , SNP, Plaid Cymru , DUP and maybe some other new party not yet formed etc . This would mean that if UKIP were too extreme in their demands Lab/or Con could tell them to get lost and go with someone else.
What's wierd is that objectors to PR seem to get their knickers in a twist about things like this whilst forgetting that FPTP is terrible at producing minority governments (on votes cast) and creates a system where we are all held to ransom by roughly 800,000 swing voters in key marginals while the rest of us hopelessly look on. We also get held to ransom by two big parties who won't let go of the system.
In theory it would seem that PR promotes a small party holding everyone to ransom , but in reality this doesn't happen because it's self regulating. It actually produces stable , mature , representative democracies.
18 May 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMaybe , maybe not , but the problem with these FPTP "stable" governments is that they end up feeling invincible and get complacent because they don't have to do deals with anyone. Also , they are all minority governments and and can become very unpopular.
It is definitely true that FPTP systems tend to provide more stable governments than "more PR" ones.
The big draw back is that even though during their term/s they are stable , after it's over the other party comes in and often undoes all their work and reverses policies etc , this creates long term confusion and instability because the country swings left then right , rather than centre left to centre/ centre right. PR coalition governments can make more stable long term plans because they know that the chances are one or both of the parties will stay around for the next term.
For example , if the tory/lib dem coalition really wanted to have a long term plan of 30 years for the country (eg nuclear power) they could in theory shut labour out for decades.
19 May 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis would mean that if UKIP were too extreme in their demands Lab/or Con could tell them to get lost and go with someone else.
Witness the way the Lib Dems pretty much controlled what government we had. Now, I completely agree that they should have far more seats than they have. But in a hypothetical case where they hadn't been shafted by the system, they'd still have had that influence.
-------------------------------mtthw------------------------------------
Yes , but t ...[text shortened]... e it's self regulating. It actually produces stable , mature , representative democracies.
This is how it works here, too. There are usually two or three realistic coalition possibilities which involve a smaller party, so they can never hold anyone "to ransom". In the previous election, the Socialist Party made big gains and became the third party, and began talks with the bigger Christian Democrats and Labour. The talks collapsed and the Christian Democrats and Labour formed a government with the small Christian Union instead (this government collapsed after three out of a maximum four years).
19 May 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMaybe you can enlighten me on one practical aspect of electoral reform I'm not sure about.
This is how it works here, too. There are usually two or three realistic coalition possibilities which involve a smaller party, so they can never hold anyone "to ransom". In the previous election, the Socialist Party made big gains and became the third party, and began talks with the bigger Christian Democrats and Labour. The talks collapsed and the Chr ...[text shortened]... l Christian Union instead (this government collapsed after three out of a maximum four years).
If, as the Lib Dems want, we move to a PR system and fixed term parliaments, it's not that hard to imagine a situation (say after the breakdown of a coalition) where no parties are in a position to form a government. All possible coalition talks break down over some important principle or other, and no single party is big enough to get away with a minority government.
What happens then? Is there some mechanism to force early elections in some circumstances? Or do we just hope that never happens?
19 May 10
Originally posted by mtthwIf that happens here, a new election is called (since the last one just collapsed, elections are next month). It would be a rather strange idea to implement both (partial) PR and fixed term parliaments.
Maybe you can enlighten me on one practical aspect of electoral reform I'm not sure about.
If, as the Lib Dems want, we move to a PR system and fixed term parliaments, it's not that hard to imagine a situation (say after the breakdown of a coalition) where no parties are in a position to form a government. All possible coalition talks break down ove ...[text shortened]... hanism to force early elections in some circumstances? Or do we just hope that never happens?
19 May 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell, that's what the Lib Dems want - I wasn't sure how common it was elsewhere. I could imagine it making sense that if a coalition collapses a new one can form without necessarily calling an election - but that won't always be possible.
If that happens here, a new election is called (since the last one just collapsed, elections are next month). It would be a rather strange idea to implement both (partial) PR and fixed term parliaments.