Mick F wrote:Taken to extreme, a two party system with 50.1% winning, leaving 49.9% unrepresented is a stupid system. Always has been.
Or even 52% to 48%.
Or even 51.89% to 48.11% - significant figures
Surely the elephant in the room is this: if you end up on the 'losing' side, when you think you ought to have won, you're going to deride "democracy", whatever the system. But I agree that FPTP has always delivered a result not in accordance with the voters' preferences.
Let me cite the analogy of a tennis match. In a 5-set match, player A beats player B: 7-5, 7-5, 0-6, 0-6, 7-5. So player B has won 27 games as against Player A's 21 - but player A still wins the match! Is that fair! No matter - it's in accordance with the rules of tennis, so it has to stand.
The USA presidential system is the stupidest of the lot - and we all know who really
won in 2016. Sort of 'block vote', isn't it: if a party wins a small majority in a multi-delegate state, then all
the delegates in that state vote for said party. Surely the Constitution (which has had many Amendments since its inception) could be amended so that the delegates are assigned in each state in accordance with the share of votes?
But that ain't gonna happen - at least, not while the incumbent benefits from this corrupt system, and has a vested interest in keeping things so...
Back to the 'losers' point of view. The trouble is, in some examples - not all - the losers' wishes are subsequently utterly ignored, as if they did not exist. That certainly happened after the referendum - and it will continue to happen until we get another chance, which won't happen under the present regime. There's the opposite effect too - where those who voted for the winning
side are rewarded with "sweeties" after the event. That seems to be happening with the Tory switchers in Northern constituencies. Once again, not a whisper of comfort for the losers - of whatever party.
Sometimes, I feel that a populace can't be trusted to deliver a just and humane result in a democratic process. But this is inflammatory talk - I wouldn't put it too strongly!