Slashdot Mirror
UK Election Arcana, Explained By Software
An anonymous reader writes "For the first time in 35 years the UK government is looking to be at risk of getting a hung or coalition government. (The most recent previous hung parliaments were in 1974 and 1929.) The voting rules are somewhat arcane and the votes this time are such that there are many strange possible outcomes and a surprisingly large number of permutations of coalitions that could be formed and political strategies that may go into their forming. There are at least 60 permutations, some more politically plausible than others. Adam Back wrote some software to work out the permutations, and lists some of the arcane factors affecting the outcome. If Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown chose to, it would appear even that he could simply refuse to resign, ostensibly trying to form a coalition indefinitely, maybe even forcing the Queen to dismiss the current government, which last happened in 1834 under King William IV."
It's why we need to Take Back Parliament and get a fair voting system. I went to the protest in London yesterday, and I encourage anyone that can to come to the next one, on Saturday (14:00, 15th May, Parliament Square, London).
2/ The conservatives and Liberal democrats do a deal, and make a joint platform. This is the only one that has got any possiblity of lasting. The tricky part is as the 3rd Party the Liberal Democrats want some form of proportial representation (which would double their seats in parlament). The conservatives don't want that at all. They like the current system. I don't know what is going to happen here. I guess the Lib Dems will blink "for the good of the coutry", and a deal will be done.
The other sticking point for the Lib Dems is Europe. They are very pro, the Conservatives are very anti.
There's strong public campaigns at the moment for the Lib Dems not to compromise on electoral reform -- after all this is a once in a generation opportunity.
Electoral reform is the one thing I want to see achieved in this parliament.
AV+ * Maintain single-member constituencies.
* Would lead to a more proportional result than first-past-the-post system , but would still give a built-in advantage to the largest party and allow one-party rule during landslide years.
* Would be more likely to prevent extremist parties or fringe parties from winning seats than entirely proportional systems. [No BNP!]
* Would lessen the necessity of tactical voting.
The Roy Jenkins Commission settled on this option.
Well, your whole democracy is a patch. A hack. You still keep the queen around, of course, she has no political power and her role is to produce news for the tabloids that the illiterate of your country can follow. The queen in the UK = Oprah in the states. Except, that according to the law, the queen can still intervene. Her powers, while null in practice, are still intact on paper. Please remember the Fear of queen-intervention in Canada a few months ago, and a similar situation now in the UK. So, this arcane bitch that you keep for decorative purposes has actual power that she can use at any time. Off course, nobody will actually let her use it. The deal is: She gets to keep the crown and go to boring parties as long as she doesn't use her power. If she does, the people will kick her out in the blink of an eye.
So, that's what I call Arcane. That's an ugly hack. A workaround.
Off course, there are systems that are even more stupid and broken that the on in the UK, for instance, the electoral-college, two-party system in the US. /Disclaimer: I am neither from the States nor the UK.
Is this the M.P.L.A
Or is this the U.D.A
Or is this the I.R.A
I thought it was the U.K or just
another country
another council tenancy
Isn't it sad that Lyndon is doing ads for margarine, and that Dave Mustain said he won't do the cover of Anarchy in the UK anymore because he's now a stupid Christian?
Sorry to go off-topic ... my mind wonders ....
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Those are valid points, but it is not as black and white as you make it sound.
First the two parties have not been stagnant "as long as anyone can remember". They have not even been stagnant over the last 1-2 decades. While one party will win and have need for only limited compromise with the losing party that does not mean no compromise or coalition has been formed. Rather the party platforms are fluid and coalitions are formed within the two parties with certain interests moving to the party that will best represent them.
For example, what do labor unions, gay men, women and environmentalists all have in common? They were not well represented by the Republicans when the Republicans where in power. They compromised and brought in other interests until the democratic party was strong enough to take power. Looking at the same party in different regions of the country will also show just how much compromise and coalition forming goes into the US parties.
Its not an ideal system certainly, but I would look at the electoral college and various senate problems as bigger problems than our current 2 party system.
Morpheus, God of Dreams.
We had a similar proportional representation movement in Canada. It failed. Particularly for many of the reasons you mentioned. The biggest and most fatal flaw of proportional representation, in my opinion, is the lack of direct representation as you mentioned. This entails several unsavoury results:
- No local representation. Geography-based representation is huge for a country like Canada. Small communities need a voice. Although they may not have an equal voice in Parliament, at least they won't get ignored as they would in a proportional representation system.
- No accountability. In a FPTP (first past the post) system, an MP is accountable to their electorate. If you F up, you will be voted out. In a proportional system, the parties decide who the MPs are, so even if an MP Fs up, they may not be replaced by the party.
- No attachment to electorate. This is related to both of the above. An attachment to their electorate means that, at least in principle and outwardly, MPs need to take into account the interests of their electorate. Of the people they represent. In a proportional representation system, MPs will not be representing the people. They will be representatives of their party.
The last point illustrates, I think, a very important, but also very subtle, difference. When you represent the people of your electorate, you have to at least have your electorate's interests in the back of your mind. You will ultimately be judged by the people. Even if you F up and still manage to keep the party's candidacy, the people may vote you out. However, when you represent your party, your boss is not the people, but the party's bigwigs. As long as you can keep the favour of your party, you will keep your seat. All you need to be concerned with is maintaining the party line, while the party does the PR for you.
There's almost no situation where a proportional representation system would beat out a FPTP system, in terms of keeping the people in charge in a democracy. I think a proportional representation system is only appealing because people don't really grasp all the concepts involved in a solid, democratic Parliamentary system. I'm not saying that FPTP is the ideal system, but it's the best that we have so far. Proportional representation falls short on so many aspects that it's just not worth any serious consideration. You'll notice that proportional representation movements are almost ubiquitously popular movements that don't have much expert or academic support. People who know the Parliamentary systems well know that it won't work.
I can't speak for the parent poster but personally I'm working on it.
We just launched a new site so the forums are a bit sparse. We're still working out the kinks in the organization and it sure will be a long hard road but at least I feel like I'm finally doing something about it instead of bitching on the internet and getting pepper sprayed at protests.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.