This from the BBC web site a few minutes ago:
Nothing on earth can justify that.
47% of the votes and 89% of the seats is not democracy in action.
It’s close to fraud.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
And yet…would you be happy with a system that gave UKIP and the BNP a combined 6.3% of the seats?
The challenge for democracy is always in part to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It is therefore ironic that many of those supporting PR do so in the belief that it would lead to a permanently “progressive” government: or, in other words, that the 55% of the votes in East Anglia attributible to he Tories, UKIP, BNP and English Democrats would permanently be excluded from having a say in government by the “progressive” majorities in Scotland, Wales and a few cities in the north of England. That is not democracy in action either.
I think a better solution would be to accept what the election result plainly says: that England is basically Tory and Scotland and Wales overwhelmingly anti-Tory. Lets just give full independence to England, Scotland and Wales. It is clear that the Tories have absolutely no mandate to govern Scotland and allowing them to do so is inviting public disorder.
It is ironic that the parties who want closer interation with Europe are supporters of devolution in the UK and vice versa. Surely the lesson of the election is that the United Kingdom is culturally, politically and economically divided and has served its purpose.
This must rate as one of the silliest blog posts of all time.
The reason that there is a lack of correlation between the national share of the vote and the number of seats is that the national share of the vote is a completely irrelevant statistic. We don’t vote for a government, we vote for a local MP. This is a good thing, because it means that your MP is accountable to you, locally, and is assigned to deal with problems that exist in the region in which you live.
The Boundary Commission does its best, based on the most recent census data, to adjust the electoral boundaries to keep the constituencies roughly the same size, but even that won’t prevent differences because the national share of the vote figures include votes for local candidates who were not elected, and so, because the Liberal Democrats pick up a lot of second places, it always looks like they have many fewer seats than the national statistic might imply. This isn’t “unfair”, it’s happening because you’re adding up the numbers in a foolish manner to create a statistic that is utterly irrelevant under our electoral system.
If we were to change to PR, not only does this run the risk of permanently disenfranchising those citizens who do not believe in a “progressive” agenda, who, in England at least, are in the overwhelming majority, but it will also mean that you are not able to choose a local representative. Sure, you may be able to choose a list of several “local” representatives, but for a constituency that will necessarily be several times the size (as happens currently for the European Parliament), and since their interests and views on any given matter may clash it’s very unlikely that you will get decisive action on many local matters.
@alastair
Your comment could only be from a person also stupid enough to believe that the assumptions underpinning neoliberal economics are valid
I guarantee you:
a) 95% of people who voted this week did so on party lines and had n clue as to the identity of the person they voted for
b) 95% have never contacted there MP
c) 95% would prefer to contact an MP with whom they have sympathy
d) 63% at least in the UK have no chance of that
As for geographic size of constituency – have you not noticed we have cars now? Many boundaries relate to the 19 century, at least in principle, so your comment is just daft
And as for the progressive majority – add Lib Dems, Labour and Nationalists and there is always a progressive majority in this country
Tories would never be disenfranchised though -because every single seat in the UK (but not NI) would have a Tory member under PR
So stop talking twaddle
Your ability to analyse politics is clearly as fantastical as your ability to comment on economics
I guarantee you:
a) 95% of people who voted this week did so on party lines and had n clue as to the identity of the person they voted for
b) 95% have never contacted there MP
c) 95% would prefer to contact an MP with whom they have sympathy
d) 63% at least in the UK have no chance of that
Mostly nonsense. People know very well who they are voting for. In the last 20 years, in 4 of the constituencies adjoining this one 5 MPs or candidates have lost party seats because of their behaviour or character. People know perfectly well who they are. On the other hand very few people know the name of their MEPs.
Under PR, corruption is rife, fools and idiots fester on the party lists and cannot be removed by voters. I once had the misfortune to share a table on Eurostar with Christopher Beazley, a Conservative MEP, and I have to admit that I have never met a lower calibre elected politician (and (I have been involved in district council candidate selection and known quite a few candidates in my time). I am sure that Beazley never met an of his constituents, but he is a prime example of a useless candidate who can “hide” on a PR list and never be held to account.
@Alex
You utterly fail to make your case
They know who not to vote for
They do not know who they are voting for
Very different
And of course there’s never been any corruption in first past the post, has there?
A do really wonder if you live on the same planet as me