UK Election - The vote - Rest of the world ONLY

[Occasional Fan]

Maranello may have another view, but I think this is like turkeys voting for Christmas, RBLC. Something tells me that we should be moving to some form of PR, but it's not all good news - can lead, for example, to pretty stagnant situations arising election after election with only a handful of seats changing hands as party shares vary relatively little over time; frequently gives rise to hung parliaments or very slim majorities (the Czech government has had a majority of one in the last two parliaments and is, to put it politely, pretty unstable); and allows the lunatic fringe to get into the chamber. Although I am not 100% in favour of the FPTP system, I am pretty glad that we don't have rabid commies in the House, and just as glad that the odious Nick Griffin, a man who scored a very disappointing poll last night of around 5,000 votes on a blatantly racist ticket, hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting in. OK, maybe our democracy is rigged against him, but that's just fine by me!

[King Aragorn]

I would just like to throw in my ignorent self into this intelligent conversation and pose a few questions...

1) Is it true that Labour received around just 36 percent of the total vote? Will anything be done about this or not? How much power does the Electoral Reform Society have?

2) Observers last night on BBC were comentating that the system favoured the Labour Party. Then they went on to say that when the Tories were in power, the balance at that time too was shifted towards the Tories and hence this makes it harder for the opposition party to win seats. Is that correct? If yes, how does it happen?

3) How will the PM be elected now? Who decides if Blair or Brown are to stand for Prime Ministership?

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child 46765

Maranello, do you think we'll see any move even just at a local level of electoral reform ? There are load s of different versions of PR all of which are fairer than the first past the post system.

Sorry RBLC I only just saw your post when OF replied.

I don't think the UK will have PR for the Commons for the forseeable future. However, we do have versions for it in many other elections. We have STV (single transferrable vote) for the election of the London mayor, and that is probably the 'fairest' method, at least from an ivory tower. STV alongwith PR is used for the Greater London Assembly, on a party-list for "regions" basis. Similarly, it is used for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and European elections etc.

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan 46772

Maranello may have another view, but I think this is like turkeys voting for Christmas, RBLC. Something tells me that we should be moving to some form of PR, but it's not all good news - can lead, for example, to pretty stagnant situations...

OF, there are numerous arguments in favour of various versions of PR, which all answer the points you have raised in favour of FPTP. The most potent, to my mind at least, is that PR does not have to be one national constituency, with one single party list for the whole country. Rather, you can have as many constituencies as you want, as long as a party list system operates. Hence the GLA, which has 25 members, is elected in this manner, with each member coming from one of the 14 constituencies (some basic info here). Replicated across the whole UK, we could have as many as 250 constituencies to get our 650 MPs; in that scenario, especially if STV is used, each vote will really count, no matter who you vote for, since you can also vote for second and third preferences.

The Czechs might have a more monotonous national political culture, but here in the UK we have significant regional variations, and party shares of vote changes sometimes dramatically over time, and from region to region, responding to all kinds of local issues, presure groups, lobbies, international concerns, etc.

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan 46772

glad that the odious Nick Griffin, a man who scored a very disappointing poll last night of around 5,000 votes on a blatantly racist ticket, hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting in.

I don't disagree OF, and hence many versions of PR incorporate a 'minimum votes' clause. I find rabid communists and far-right racists as distasteful as you do, but if 5% of the total British electorate (could be as many as 0.7 to 1.0 million people!) vote for someone, they do deserve representation in the legislature. There is also a subjective argument that bringing such odious characters into the mainstream, if they have the votes, is better than keeping them on the lunatic fringe. For instance, Jorg Haider after his party's period in power appears to be less of an issue than he once was.

If 0.7million people vote for Griffin (5% of the electorate), surely it is right that their voice is heard and their legitimate concerns addressed; disenfranchising them is surely a recipe for longer term disaster! Under FPTP, you are right, Griffin will never pick up a seat, even with 5% of the vote nationally.

[Occasional Fan]

Picking up KA's questions above:

1. Yes, almost certainly not and none. The ERS is a lobbying group/think tank, not a body with any official status.

2. I'm not sure on this one, but I think Maranello could be the guy to explain. There are some mathematical justifications for the contention, I believe, but I confess I can't articulate them.

3. The PM is chosen by the Queen, at least constitutionally. In practice, she will invite the leader of the party with the most seats - that is Blair - to form a government for her. And of course it will then govern us, not her, but that's another thing! If Blair steps down as leader and someone else takes over, the Queen has no role because in fact the role of Prime Minister doesn't really mean much anyway. He's a first among equals - has the same status as any other Minister**. So, if any other Minister becomes leader of the governing party, he or she just takes over without any ceremony. This happened for example when Margaret Thatcher was ousted as Tory leader in favour of John Major.

** In fact, the wording on the letterbox of No 10 doesn't even refer to the Prime Minister. It says "First Lord of The Treasury", which is an official title which the PM carries. Not sure what it means, but it does sound as though it's a method of ensuring that the bloke in No 10 is the boss of the bloke in No 11 (The Chancellor of The Exchequer).

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Maranello

I find rabid communists and far-right racists as distasteful as you do, but if 5% of the total British electorate (could be as many as 0.7 to 1.0 million people!) vote for someone, they do deserve representation in the legislature. There is also a subjective argument that bringing such odious characters into the mainstream, if they have the votes, is better than keeping them on the lunatic fringe. For instance, Jorg Haider after his party's period in power appears to be less of an issue than he once was.

If 0.7million people vote for Griffin (5% of the electorate), surely it is right that their voice is heard and their legitimate concerns addressed; disenfranchising them is surely a recipe for longer term disaster! Under FPTP, you are right, Griffin will never pick up a seat, even with 5% of the vote nationally.

Maranello, actually I was a bit tongue in cheek with this one. I would be the last person in the world to suggest that political parties, however odious, should be banned. Do that and they go underground, or establish private armies like the SA and similar. I'd much rather have these bastards out in the open where everyone can see and hear for themselves what a bigoted and dangerous crowd they are. I remain pretty happy, however, that the BNP (for example) has had its day for a while, has been granted its party election broadcast, etc., and has failed to be elected according to the existing rules. I take your point that if there are enough dangerous and bigoted voters out there under a PR system they might have to be allowed in - and in fact this might lead to greater participation by the electorate as right-thinking people are actually motivated to keep these extremists out. I know at the last European Parliament election I was sufficiently worried that the UK might shamefully send BNP representatives to Strasbourg that I flew back to the UK to place my own PR vote against them and to persuade as many other people as I could to do likewise. (I could have voted for Czech members in the school just opposite my flat here, but preferred to use my UK vote on that occasion: legally I can choose one or the other in European Parliament elections.)

One thing which I would be fairly confident of is that a PR system for parliamentary elections in the UK would encourage higher participation, which I believe to be a good thing. One day, maybe we will find out!

[Occasional Fan]

I've just had a bit of a shock realisation. Maybe you have too. Do you know that, for the next four years or so, we're going to have to talk about cricket?

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

I'll be glad to. Its just the SA series was so long ago and the ashes seem so far away - and we might not win them either !

[King Aragorn]

Thank you for your help, OF! Quite an interesting political situation seems to be developing now.

[Beny]

A victory for the Iraqi people and a loss for the left wing media

They the same Iraqi people now blowing us up?

Preety good result on the whole... Blair still in, which I think is definetly better than the conservatives, but he's lost that rediculous majority he had.

fascist regime in DC

Ohhh! Maranello mate, That's a bit much.

Otherwise, well said though

[Occasional Fan]

King Aragorn - I'm still not quite sure about this issue of bias in our electoral system, but it has been pointed out that, on average, each Labour seat in the new parliament required about 27,000 votes; each Tory seat required about 45,000 votes; and each Liberal Democrat seat required just under 100,000 votes. So there is clearly something odd here! It's also pretty clear that the Labour government has no incentive at all to change the present system.