Re: PR (was Re: David Owen)

"Richard Gadsden" <rgadsden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:memo.20060119220151.1600E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <dqotdo$ofr$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:39:21
> -0000, adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Adam Gray) wrote:
>
>> But you cannot dispute that under PR coalition politics is a far more
>> common; in fact a near certainty.
>
> Not in Malta.

As Malta goes, so goes Guernsey? Are you seriously basing your support for
PR on the case of that behemoth of a country?

> In fact that was my point - I'm arguing from broad
> principle; you're arguing from the specific circumstances of one country.

You've come up with Malta: a specific circumstance. *You're* the one
arguing from specific circumstances of one - quite irrelevant little -
country. You can accuse me of "arguing from the specific circumstances of
one country"...my own...if you wish - I am indeed guilty of being more
concerned about the impact on my country than on Malta, but it's untrue to
claim I am ONLY arguing on the basis of specific interest - a cursory
reading of my earlier post will reveal several objections in principle with
PR systems.

>> > If you want to ensure majority politics, then you need to have a
>> > system that actually guarantees a majority
>>
>> No it isn't: the only time in 60 years that the voters have elected a
>> parliament without giving one party an overall majority is February
>> 1974 - a mistake they corrected 9 months later.
>
> That's not true. Every Indian General Election since (when? Indira
> Gandhi's assassination, I think) has elected a parliament without giving
> one party an overall majority.

Look at the title of this newsgroup, Richard. It's called
UK.politics.electoral. Not India. Not Malta. Not the federated states of
Micronesia. The UK.

>> But you've yet to evidence that it has stopped working
>
> I agree. I'm accepting that it "works" in that sense at the moment. I'm
> asking the question of where you would stand in a political context like
> that in - say - India where no party

Well, I don't accept that such a context will ever arise in Britain. India
has hung parliaments because it is such a huge, regionalised country with
specific, strong "local" parties that have no strength elsewhere. It also
has stronger nationwide "smaller" parties like the Communists. Even
imagining that Wales and Scotland returned a full slate of nationalists, I
don't think hung parliaments would be a likelihood.

But let's indulge your hypothesis: if that occurred I would still not be a
fan of PR because of the other flaws detailed in my earlier posts.

>> the other
>> problem with your argument is that it assumes that's the sole argument
>> for supporting FPTP: there are other very significant ones, like
>> keeping a closer link between representatives and their constituents,
>> smaller constituencies, transparency of electoral system and - not
>> least - that it is blindingly fair and sensible that the candidates
>> with the most votes should be elected!

> Transparency? I think I'm too much of an electoral systems guy to find
> anything short of STV-CPO or RBV difficult to understand. And once you
> include the tactical implications, I find that voting in FPTP is no less
> complex than STV.

We've never had, and never will have any evidence on the extent of tactical
voting: I suspect it is greatly exaggerated, and limited to the sorts of
people who angst over electoral systems.

> Candidates with the most votes? Isn't that exactly what STV or even lists
> are doing? I really don't follow that point; it's not like they're SSV or
> deliberately electing the candidate with the least votes.

Not saying you are. The problem we encounter with preferential voting
systems is that candidates with more first preference votes than others can
lose - and I find that wrong. Under FPTP, the candidate with the most votes
wins - nice, simple, open and honest. That's the best, most democratic
system for me.

Adam


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Impeach (Chelsea) Clinton NOW!
    ... I'd guess it has something to do with it being a big country and there ... "winner take all" has a tendancy to shut out candidates with some ... East gets 60% of the votes in the eastern half of the ... first choice, 2 next to your second choice, and so on). ...
    (misc.legal)
  • Re: AV arguments
    ... Voters are asked to rank as many of the candidates as they wish, ... The votes are counted, looking only at who people put as their ... discarding any votes which _only_ listed the ... preference, and BNP has the fewest first preference, then BNP is ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: AV arguments
    ... The votes are counted, looking only at who people put as their first ... If one of the candidates gets more than half the votes cast, ... Do you think it's possible in reality, and not in hypothesis, that someone that ALL the tory voters, and ALL the LD voters and ALL the labour voters and the greens and the BNP wanted if their own guy didn't get in, would not have anyone at all who actually wanted them the most? ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: AV arguments
    ... The votes are counted, looking only at who people put as their first ... If one of the candidates gets more than half the votes cast, ... candidate which did list a second preference, ... discarding any votes which _only_ listed the ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: How pathetic is the GOP field?
    ... in any other country, maybe you can close it down. ... but that doesn't mean you chuck out all reason in the process. ... up on the federal level. ... that they'll be the candidates running in the future. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)