Politricks

[Vorpal]

Much of the problem with politics in the UK (and the USA) is the involvement of money and monied interests.

It is impossible to sort the upper class politicians from their (or their families') interests in various corporations, funds, or industries.

Part of the reason fro proportional representation is allow other interests to be represented.

If you look at countries that have some sort of PR, while there are still wealthy people and monied interests in politics, it is balanced by minority parties who have strong environmental or social platforms.

FPTP keeps those parties & interests effectively out of the system in the US and UK.

[Ben@Forest]

Much of the problem with politics in the UK (and the USA) is the involvement of money and monied interests.

It is impossible to sort the upper class politicians from their (or their families') interests in various corporations, funds, or industries.

Part of the reason fro proportional representation is allow other interests to be represented.

If you look at countries that have some sort of PR, while there are still wealthy people and monied interests in politics, it is balanced by minority parties who have strong environmental or social platforms.

FPTP keeps those parties & interests effectively out of the system in the US and UK.

This analysis ignores the fact that Labour was the party of the trade unions - not monied classes or interests - until you get to the point of course that saving, retaining or creating new jobs in an industry (such as defence or nuclear power) becomes an interest. Trade unions were indeed responsible for the creation of the Labour Party and:

• established a membership political levy and and this funding was crucial to Labour's electoral success at local, regional and national levels
• organised union activists for the Labour Party at all levels
• were instrumental in the making of party policy: e.g. the welfare state; the national minimum wage, employment rights and a wider range of social and political matters
• were a bulwark of stability in moments of crisis for Labour and sustained Labour governments, especially in 1945-51, 1974-79, and 1997-2010
• provide a training ground for Labour leaders, MPs, local party leaders, councillors, etc.

But still found it better to achieve this through FPTP.

[jgurney]

I often wonder why we need 'representatives' in a parliament these days. With modern tech we should be able to vote on anything and everything right from our living room.

Because with low response rates there would be some, perhaps many, cases where contradictory decisions arose.

E.g. a set of technical rules on road signage is widely ignored, with only 6% turnout voting on it. A different 8% bother to vote on some regulations on railway safety. It then turns out that they have made contradictory rules around signposting level crossings, because no-one had been involved in both motions. Parliament sorts this sort of thing out at the committee stages. If anyone could table motions online and they passed or failed on the votes of those who bothered to vote, there would be endless contradictions.

[jgurney]

This analysis ignores the fact that Labour was the party of the trade unions - ....But still found it better to achieve this through FPTP.

The constituency system (FPTP) is strongly biased towards parties with strong regional variations in their support, and against those with an even national spread of supporters. This helped the early Labour MP's get elected in areas where the majority of voters were unionised workers or their dependents.

With 650 constituencies, assuming voters were evenly distributed between them and turnouts were 65%, a party could theoretically get 10 MP's by getting 33% of registered voters in 1/65 of constituencies to support them (i.e. 0.5077% of the voters in the country). That might be much easier than getting the 5% needed to get any seats in most PR systems. It is not always true that PR helps minority parties: it does help minority parties with distributed support, but FPTP can help those with very localised support.

[mjr]

Germany has gone beyond its 'absolute deadline' for a coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU, FDP and the Greens - new elections might be in the offing...

What 'absolute deadline' is that then? I thought Merkel was talking about maybe being able to get in before Christmas.

PR must be the future aim. I believe the UK is virtually the only major democracy to still use FPTP.

The USA uses it. Some local authorities have some form of proportional representation and/or open election systems, but state and national elections are all FPTP.

Isn't president the only US national election? That's not quite winner-takes-all (the UK is not FPTP - there is no post to be first past) but a bizarre electoral college with the states using their own systems to select their electors, plus then there are sometimes so-called "faithless electors" who don't do as they're told. It's a relic of the stagecoach era.

Some states still use multi-winner state election systems which are neither winner-takes-all or FPTP (there's still no winning post). Still not proportional but more chance of not being winner-takes-all.

[mjr]

India, the world's largest democracy, uses FPTP.

Only for the lower house (WTA not FPTP). The president is elected by electoral college and the upper house by STV, both with restricted electorates.

[Ben@Forest]

Germany has gone beyond its 'absolute deadline' for a coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU, FDP and the Greens - new elections might be in the offing...

What 'absolute deadline' is that then? I thought Merkel was talking about maybe being able to get in before Christmas.

Merkel's own - according to 'Die Zeit' a couple of days ago it was Thursday night. Away from German language newspapers Reuters is now reporting it's 'this weekend'.

“I go into these negotiations with the intention, despite all the difficulties, of carrying out the task voters gave us of forming a coalition,” Merkel said as she arrived for the next round. “It will be tough, but it’s worth going into round two.”

Volker Kauder, the parliamentary floor leader of her Christian Democrats (CDU), said they were prepared to compromise further on reducing emissions from coal-fired power stations to assuage Green concerns.

“I feel readiness by all sides and everyone has to make concessions,” he told reporters as officials scheduled further talks to run to Sunday afternoon.

“I believe that the exploratory talks must end this weekend.”

Failure to agree could lead to new elections, something the mainstream parties fear could lead to the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) making further gains after surging into parliament in September.

[Mistik-ka]

Canada is still using the FPTP system.

During the last election campaign —in which it looked at the outset as if his Liberal party was going to do badly— Justin Trudeau promised that, if elected, his government would ensure there would never be another FPTP election.

To almost everyone's surprise, the Liberals won a majority.

To almost no one's surprise, Prime Minister Trudeau announced that there would be no change in the system because he had discovered that "Canadians have no appetite for electoral reform".

[mjr]

Germany has gone beyond its 'absolute deadline' for a coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU, FDP and the Greens - new elections might be in the offing...

What 'absolute deadline' is that then? I thought Merkel was talking about maybe being able to get in before Christmas.

Merkel's own - [...]

So just a tactic to try to hurry negotiations along, then.

“I believe that the exploratory talks must end this weekend.”

Only that exploratory talks must end. There might be some final non-exploratory ones.

Move along, no news here unless you like watching the machinations within the Berlin bubble.

[mercalia]

One alternative is Dynasty politics like in Rhodesia with Mugabe who wont let go. Be thankful we aint going down that path

[Cunobelin]

Much of the problem with politics in the UK (and the USA) is the involvement of money and monied interests.

It is impossible to sort the upper class politicians from their (or their families') interests in various corporations, funds, or industries.

Part of the reason fro proportional representation is allow other interests to be represented.

If you look at countries that have some sort of PR, while there are still wealthy people and monied interests in politics, it is balanced by minority parties who have strong environmental or social platforms.

FPTP keeps those parties & interests effectively out of the system in the US and UK.

Lets look at a system where the parties get seats proportional to the national vote


in 2010 the BNP had 1.9% of the vote so would lave been entitled to at least half dozen seats. The present system kept them out, The National Front have also been in the position where more than one parliamentary seat would have been won

Is allowing "fringe" parties such as these parties with strong social platforms really good for Government

[meic]

in 2010 the BNP had 1.9% of the vote so would lave been entitled to at least half dozen seats.

Normally there is a threshold which must be met before you get any (top up) seats of 5% or 10%.

[Cunobelin]

in 2010 the BNP had 1.9% of the vote so would lave been entitled to at least half dozen seats.

Normally there is a threshold which must be met before you get any (top up) seats of 5% or 10%.

Which then becomes a selective process that disenfranchises voters

[meic]

Not to the same extent that FPTP does. It seems that under your terms PR is dammed when it does and dammed when it doesnt.

[Vorpal]

Much of the problem with politics in the UK (and the USA) is the involvement of money and monied interests.

It is impossible to sort the upper class politicians from their (or their families') interests in various corporations, funds, or industries.

Part of the reason fro proportional representation is allow other interests to be represented.

If you look at countries that have some sort of PR, while there are still wealthy people and monied interests in politics, it is balanced by minority parties who have strong environmental or social platforms.

FPTP keeps those parties & interests effectively out of the system in the US and UK.

Lets look at a system where the parties get seats proportional to the national vote


in 2010 the BNP had 1.9% of the vote so would lave been entitled to at least half dozen seats. The present system kept them out, The National Front have also been in the position where more than one parliamentary seat would have been won

Is allowing "fringe" parties such as these parties with strong social platforms really good for Government

In 2015, the Greens would have had 3.8% of the seats.