News1 min ago
Election Turnout Decline And Immigration?
48 Answers
Am I imagining it or has election turnout diminished to below 40% in the past couple of decades? Might this be in proportion to the cumulative total of migrants?
I have had no luck finding studies or news articles via search engine and hope you might have better luck.
After AOG's most recent thread, I wanted to pose the question of whether immigrants really do vote labour - as if that was the reason for his belief that Labour would adopt an "uncontrolled" attitude to it. What if, in fact, large numbers of them are not engaged with British politics at all? That would tend to drive down the election turnout percentages.
So, instead of British voters slowly losing interest, as the media tells us, it could be the same people turning out every time but (5yrs*200,000) additional people are present in the population stats but didn't bother to vote. (Between 1/55th and 1/60th drop in turnout per election according to how many millions UK population is.)
I view low turnout as a serious issue because it undermines the legitimacy of the government of the day, may inspire some existing voters to give up bothering and further repels the already-disengaged non-voter from ever getting involved.
With all the fuss about immigration, one would expect migrants to be exceptionally engaged in British politics. But are they?
I have had no luck finding studies or news articles via search engine and hope you might have better luck.
After AOG's most recent thread, I wanted to pose the question of whether immigrants really do vote labour - as if that was the reason for his belief that Labour would adopt an "uncontrolled" attitude to it. What if, in fact, large numbers of them are not engaged with British politics at all? That would tend to drive down the election turnout percentages.
So, instead of British voters slowly losing interest, as the media tells us, it could be the same people turning out every time but (5yrs*200,000) additional people are present in the population stats but didn't bother to vote. (Between 1/55th and 1/60th drop in turnout per election according to how many millions UK population is.)
I view low turnout as a serious issue because it undermines the legitimacy of the government of the day, may inspire some existing voters to give up bothering and further repels the already-disengaged non-voter from ever getting involved.
With all the fuss about immigration, one would expect migrants to be exceptionally engaged in British politics. But are they?
Answers
Turnout in General elections nationally has only once dipped below 60%, and then that was in 2001 when everyone knew the result before turning up. Clearly Labour was just going to win again. Otherwise, the low turnout is in Local and European elections, the AV referendum and the election for Police Commissioner
14:35 Thu 05th Mar 2015
@Zacsmaster
I shaln't complain about any detours; it has helped get the thread onto page 2. ;)
AOG's sleight-of-hand had us all going off on one, a few days ago and I could almost sense him chuckling. It's like an exam: Read the question, then re-read the question, then make sure you are happy with your idea of what you *think* the questioner is looking for.
If you leap straight to item three, he -will- catch you out.
Meanwhile, back in the thread…
--
jim360
I also was enthused by the AV issue, but made the wrong decision and voted "no". Ho hum.
--
Now that we're into what looks like permanent coalition politics and especially how it's clear the LibDems will team up with anyone, so long as they've got their mitts on the levers of power, I can understand anyone who wants to reconsider their opinion on AV.
Was there an AB thread about it, after the event?
Did they set any specific time interval during which they will decline additional AV referenda?
I shaln't complain about any detours; it has helped get the thread onto page 2. ;)
AOG's sleight-of-hand had us all going off on one, a few days ago and I could almost sense him chuckling. It's like an exam: Read the question, then re-read the question, then make sure you are happy with your idea of what you *think* the questioner is looking for.
If you leap straight to item three, he -will- catch you out.
Meanwhile, back in the thread…
--
jim360
I also was enthused by the AV issue, but made the wrong decision and voted "no". Ho hum.
--
Now that we're into what looks like permanent coalition politics and especially how it's clear the LibDems will team up with anyone, so long as they've got their mitts on the levers of power, I can understand anyone who wants to reconsider their opinion on AV.
Was there an AB thread about it, after the event?
Did they set any specific time interval during which they will decline additional AV referenda?
@Jackdaw33
After years of going on about proportional representation, I can't work out why the referendum was about alternative vote.
AV is horrifically complex and people can't vote tactically any more because the consequences are not calculable using mere brainpower.
PR has the side effect of putting the likes of BNP/EDL in the parliamentary chamber.
But isn't the main drawback that PR would leave us with a perpetual blue/red majority, unless a genuine nationwide, mass-scale change of mind came about?
ie minor parties represented, sure enough, but largely ineffectual, when it comes to the division bell?
After years of going on about proportional representation, I can't work out why the referendum was about alternative vote.
AV is horrifically complex and people can't vote tactically any more because the consequences are not calculable using mere brainpower.
PR has the side effect of putting the likes of BNP/EDL in the parliamentary chamber.
But isn't the main drawback that PR would leave us with a perpetual blue/red majority, unless a genuine nationwide, mass-scale change of mind came about?
ie minor parties represented, sure enough, but largely ineffectual, when it comes to the division bell?
Perhaps in terms of av v. First past the post it was the right call -- barely, and even that is debatable -- but the referendum on av will be treated as a vote against any kind of voting reform for a long time yet. That is definitely not a good thing for our democracy, especially in 2015 when it seems likely that people want minor parties to have more say.
The ins and outs of AV have long since been wiped from memory. Indulge me for a moment:
In what possible scenario would it make the slightest difference what someone's second, third, or 'n'th vote was when, under FPTP, majorities of under 1000 votes are quite rare?
The 'maximally unfair' scenario was one where Con and Lab are split 50:50 but 80% of voters select LibDem as their second preference, such that the (2010) third most popular party wins the seat!
Ironic that the LibDems possibly inspired people to vote no, with that scenario in mind, after all their campaigning for PR.
In what possible scenario would it make the slightest difference what someone's second, third, or 'n'th vote was when, under FPTP, majorities of under 1000 votes are quite rare?
The 'maximally unfair' scenario was one where Con and Lab are split 50:50 but 80% of voters select LibDem as their second preference, such that the (2010) third most popular party wins the seat!
Ironic that the LibDems possibly inspired people to vote no, with that scenario in mind, after all their campaigning for PR.
I'm not keen on minor parties having much of a say and preventing progress bogging it down in endless disagreement/debate. Better by far to get the technology up to standard as soon as possible and then let the people vote on issues directly; not some fop to democracy offering a change to vote for the next lot to impose on the rest of the country their unwanted ideologies.
Thank you again, jim.
The 50%+1 bit is at parliament level, or constituency level? The rest of the paragraph suggests you meant the latter.
An AV mechanism that only kicks in when the national result reads "hung parliament" would be interesting - decisively selecting a winning party and saving us from coalition slimyness.
BUT… it would annoy the mammaries off the electorate because of the extra thinking required for something that round one might render redundant anyway.
@O_G
Very much in line with my own thinking. Could have been BA but we're not allowed supplementary choices.
With regard to slim majority syndrome, I have said on AB before that I would like a system where the majority figures count at the division on every bill reading. No more "pairing off", unless it entails a 20k majority countryside Tory pairing off with a 20k majority inner-city labourite.
Members at the commons bar or the golf club or on holiday risk scr**ing up their party's attempts to pass legislation.
Using technology, so the public can vote on individual issues, is as close as we can get to the idealised ancient Greek concept of democracy, when 60m people ate involved. This could enable us to escape the 5-yearly election cycle, the infrastructure-neglecting short-termism, the shameless populism, the timewasting slanging matches (I'm looking at you, PMQs), the factionalism and, as O_G neatly put it, the ideologies.
Maybe I am an ideological mess but I can no longer see my spectrum of views as entirely encompassed any one party. Or every party has one or more ideological positions I don't fully agree with. But, give me individual issues and I have a lot less trouble making my mind up about them.
But can we trust the technology. In the USA, electronic voting booths were constructed *and run* by a private contractor… who may, or may not, habe been a major contributor to the funding of the Republicans. I'm not suggesting any impropriety but the scope for manipulation of votes occurring weekly (say), with no time for detailed scrutiny, is huge. Convince me of computer security first, even though I would love this to be here, now.
The 50%+1 bit is at parliament level, or constituency level? The rest of the paragraph suggests you meant the latter.
An AV mechanism that only kicks in when the national result reads "hung parliament" would be interesting - decisively selecting a winning party and saving us from coalition slimyness.
BUT… it would annoy the mammaries off the electorate because of the extra thinking required for something that round one might render redundant anyway.
@O_G
Very much in line with my own thinking. Could have been BA but we're not allowed supplementary choices.
With regard to slim majority syndrome, I have said on AB before that I would like a system where the majority figures count at the division on every bill reading. No more "pairing off", unless it entails a 20k majority countryside Tory pairing off with a 20k majority inner-city labourite.
Members at the commons bar or the golf club or on holiday risk scr**ing up their party's attempts to pass legislation.
Using technology, so the public can vote on individual issues, is as close as we can get to the idealised ancient Greek concept of democracy, when 60m people ate involved. This could enable us to escape the 5-yearly election cycle, the infrastructure-neglecting short-termism, the shameless populism, the timewasting slanging matches (I'm looking at you, PMQs), the factionalism and, as O_G neatly put it, the ideologies.
Maybe I am an ideological mess but I can no longer see my spectrum of views as entirely encompassed any one party. Or every party has one or more ideological positions I don't fully agree with. But, give me individual issues and I have a lot less trouble making my mind up about them.
But can we trust the technology. In the USA, electronic voting booths were constructed *and run* by a private contractor… who may, or may not, habe been a major contributor to the funding of the Republicans. I'm not suggesting any impropriety but the scope for manipulation of votes occurring weekly (say), with no time for detailed scrutiny, is huge. Convince me of computer security first, even though I would love this to be here, now.
// Am I imagining it or has election turnout diminished to below 40% in the past couple of decades? //
Turnout dropped to just below 60% at the 2001 but that election was not close and apathy was the cause.
2005 saw turnout rise to 64.1% and in 2010 it was 65.1%.
Rather than immigrants not voting, the decline from the 60s and 70s is almost certainly due to young people not being part of the political process.
Turnout dropped to just below 60% at the 2001 but that election was not close and apathy was the cause.
2005 saw turnout rise to 64.1% and in 2010 it was 65.1%.
Rather than immigrants not voting, the decline from the 60s and 70s is almost certainly due to young people not being part of the political process.
Strikes me that this is half the problem AV suffered -- nobody understood it, or at least it was never explained properly.
At the constituency level, many MPs command only a minority of support (I think only 210-220 had an absolute majority in 2010, leaving 400-odd where a majority of constituents did not vote for them). AV attempts to redress this balance by forcing MPs to command majority support (rather than just plurality, as is the case now). It does this by knocking out the clear losers and redistributing their votes according to second, third, fourth etc, preferences until finally there is either one party with 50%+1 or more of the remaining vote, or there are only two parties left (in which case the winner will have more than half the vote by default). In the unlikely event of a tie you probably go back to drawing lots, as is done currently.
From the point of view of the voter this system is not too difficult to understand: which candidate do I like best? Vote for him. Are there any candidates I wouldn't mind winning instead? Fine, mark them as second preference, or third if you have yet another preference. Many people will only have two or three parties they want to win, and in particular at the first round there is the option of voting for who you actually want to win, rather than just the party you think is most likely to beat the candidate you don't want to win. Much less need for tactical voting, which at constituency levels can skew things all over the place and make it look like a constituency supports someone it actually does not.
The end result is that the candidate elected has a clear majority of support, or at least is the least disliked candidate standing in that seat. You no longer get the absurd situation in seats like Brighton Pavilion or Hampstead and Kilburn, where the votes were roughly equally split between three or even four parties, but by the tiniest margins only one winner was selected to speak for the entire constituency. In AV, the winner would be a compromise candidate who is not unacceptable to the majority of voters. That represents something of an improvement by most measures.
It's not a perfect system by any means, and has the rather unusual anomaly that in some circumstances the best way to help your second preference to win if you know that your first preference won't is to actually not vote at all, but it remains a marked improvement on FPTP that has just about every flaw you could think of in a voting system.
If I were a political scientist I'm pretty sure that my thesis would be about how almost every single problem with the politics of this country can be traced to how we choose our politicians, ie very badly. As one example: you think the coalition we have is bad? Don't forget that the Lib Dems and Labour were barred from forming a working coalition because the Lib Dems were seriously underrepresented at MP-level compared to their vote share, forcing the only possible outcomes of 2010 to be minority Tory or Lib-Con coalition. This gave the Lib Dems little bargaining power to speak of, and the result is that if they wanted any say at all they had to abandon many of their campaign pledges. Compare this with the outcome under AV, which generally has the numbers shift very slightly but enough to make both Lib-Lab and Lib-Con coalitions as possible. And when LibDems have a choice, they can start to have more of a say and this changes a great deal.
Having "safe seats" doesn't help either, giving parties the ability to put whichever candidate they like into Parliament. AV doesn't fix that, but "safe" seats are a disaster for democracy really.
I could go on, but I'm reaching the character limit.
At the constituency level, many MPs command only a minority of support (I think only 210-220 had an absolute majority in 2010, leaving 400-odd where a majority of constituents did not vote for them). AV attempts to redress this balance by forcing MPs to command majority support (rather than just plurality, as is the case now). It does this by knocking out the clear losers and redistributing their votes according to second, third, fourth etc, preferences until finally there is either one party with 50%+1 or more of the remaining vote, or there are only two parties left (in which case the winner will have more than half the vote by default). In the unlikely event of a tie you probably go back to drawing lots, as is done currently.
From the point of view of the voter this system is not too difficult to understand: which candidate do I like best? Vote for him. Are there any candidates I wouldn't mind winning instead? Fine, mark them as second preference, or third if you have yet another preference. Many people will only have two or three parties they want to win, and in particular at the first round there is the option of voting for who you actually want to win, rather than just the party you think is most likely to beat the candidate you don't want to win. Much less need for tactical voting, which at constituency levels can skew things all over the place and make it look like a constituency supports someone it actually does not.
The end result is that the candidate elected has a clear majority of support, or at least is the least disliked candidate standing in that seat. You no longer get the absurd situation in seats like Brighton Pavilion or Hampstead and Kilburn, where the votes were roughly equally split between three or even four parties, but by the tiniest margins only one winner was selected to speak for the entire constituency. In AV, the winner would be a compromise candidate who is not unacceptable to the majority of voters. That represents something of an improvement by most measures.
It's not a perfect system by any means, and has the rather unusual anomaly that in some circumstances the best way to help your second preference to win if you know that your first preference won't is to actually not vote at all, but it remains a marked improvement on FPTP that has just about every flaw you could think of in a voting system.
If I were a political scientist I'm pretty sure that my thesis would be about how almost every single problem with the politics of this country can be traced to how we choose our politicians, ie very badly. As one example: you think the coalition we have is bad? Don't forget that the Lib Dems and Labour were barred from forming a working coalition because the Lib Dems were seriously underrepresented at MP-level compared to their vote share, forcing the only possible outcomes of 2010 to be minority Tory or Lib-Con coalition. This gave the Lib Dems little bargaining power to speak of, and the result is that if they wanted any say at all they had to abandon many of their campaign pledges. Compare this with the outcome under AV, which generally has the numbers shift very slightly but enough to make both Lib-Lab and Lib-Con coalitions as possible. And when LibDems have a choice, they can start to have more of a say and this changes a great deal.
Having "safe seats" doesn't help either, giving parties the ability to put whichever candidate they like into Parliament. AV doesn't fix that, but "safe" seats are a disaster for democracy really.
I could go on, but I'm reaching the character limit.
Well, on the basis of that post, jim, I would fully support AV, if I hadn't done before. Thanks for a comprehensive explanation. (My memory fails me but I recall disappointment at the result so must have voted yes).
--
Don't forget that the Lib Dems and Labour were barred from forming a working coalition because the Lib Dems were seriously underrepresented at MP-level compared to their vote share, forcing the only possible outcomes of 2010 to be minority Tory or Lib-Con coalition.
--
I don't recall anything about a Lib-Lab coalition being barred and don't understand how the reason you give didn't apply equally to the Lib-Con one.
Trouble is, I only remember being angry that the LibDems had done such a good job of making themselves look vote-worthy but not the slightest hint that they were willing to assist the Tories into power _in advance of polling day_.
Judging by last night's Question Time, they're willing to ally with whichever side can get them into power from their minority position. All the minority parties are salivating at the prospect, it seems.
Not a pretty sight.
--
Don't forget that the Lib Dems and Labour were barred from forming a working coalition because the Lib Dems were seriously underrepresented at MP-level compared to their vote share, forcing the only possible outcomes of 2010 to be minority Tory or Lib-Con coalition.
--
I don't recall anything about a Lib-Lab coalition being barred and don't understand how the reason you give didn't apply equally to the Lib-Con one.
Trouble is, I only remember being angry that the LibDems had done such a good job of making themselves look vote-worthy but not the slightest hint that they were willing to assist the Tories into power _in advance of polling day_.
Judging by last night's Question Time, they're willing to ally with whichever side can get them into power from their minority position. All the minority parties are salivating at the prospect, it seems.
Not a pretty sight.
I suppose it deserves a bit more explanation, but a Lib-Lab coalition in the result we had would have fallen 10 seats short of a majority in Parliament, meaning either minority coalition (which is just a total disaster) or needing yet another party to step in, possibly Irish Nationalists or the like, and relying on Sinn Fein to continue not showing up, and still the majority would have been in single figures.
In AV, the predicted outcome on one model was such that the Lib Dems gained about 20 seats on what they actually had, mostly at the expense of the Tories, which would have meant that a Lib-Lab or Lib-Con coalition would have held a majority in Parliament (about 350 seats either way). This incidentally also shows that AV isn't the perfect solution as parties outside the main three remain squeezed out of having any say; unfortunately, as long as we insist on single-member constituencies that is always likely to happen for parties with reasonable national support but that is evenly distributed across the country rather than focused in a few hotspots (Labour in Inner Cities, SNP in Scotland, etc.)
In AV, the predicted outcome on one model was such that the Lib Dems gained about 20 seats on what they actually had, mostly at the expense of the Tories, which would have meant that a Lib-Lab or Lib-Con coalition would have held a majority in Parliament (about 350 seats either way). This incidentally also shows that AV isn't the perfect solution as parties outside the main three remain squeezed out of having any say; unfortunately, as long as we insist on single-member constituencies that is always likely to happen for parties with reasonable national support but that is evenly distributed across the country rather than focused in a few hotspots (Labour in Inner Cities, SNP in Scotland, etc.)
Thanks again, jim.
You previously used the word 'banned' so I pictured some electoral oversight authority stepping in (no such thing, obviously). If you'd used "fell short of majority", I'd have got the picture straight away.
Nationwide support: used to give me qualms of extremist party members on the benches but slowly realising that handfuls of voices are easily outweighed in debate and can't tilt a vote on a bill by much.
What puzzles me now is why, in the current climate, we don't have the likes of a Christian Democrat party trying to launch itself. By which I mean any large demographic launching its own team of representatives because so many people profess to not trusting the goods presently on offer.
You previously used the word 'banned' so I pictured some electoral oversight authority stepping in (no such thing, obviously). If you'd used "fell short of majority", I'd have got the picture straight away.
Nationwide support: used to give me qualms of extremist party members on the benches but slowly realising that handfuls of voices are easily outweighed in debate and can't tilt a vote on a bill by much.
What puzzles me now is why, in the current climate, we don't have the likes of a Christian Democrat party trying to launch itself. By which I mean any large demographic launching its own team of representatives because so many people profess to not trusting the goods presently on offer.
I suppose they were barred by mathematical considerations... but yeah I guess I could have clarified that earlier.
I delivered a talk on voting systems only last week so the idea is fairly fresh in my head. Really the whole issue is embedded in "what kind of democracy are we wanting to live in?" and even the TV debates can be seen in that context -- the clash of presidential-stlye debates v. the actual elections being constituency-based; while the voting system is likely to play heavily in the SNP's favour despite their having by definition no chance of winning outright, and despite having also by definition no support across the country, as compared with UKIP or the Lib Dems.
Constituencies are anyway still heavily gerrymandered, particularly in the Labour party's favour. The whole set of issues can be resolved at a stroke by switching to a system similar to that used in the European Elections; but of course this is likely to work somewhat against the Tory/ Labour parties, who are also the only ones who can implement any change. To top it all, the AV referendum almost certainly represented a cynical (and successful) attempt to kick any reform into the long grass for another generation or two.
I voted no, by the way, because I was concerned that AV allowed more tactical voting than FPTP. Specifically, if you do not want candidate A to win then you just tick every other box on the ballot (in any order) in the hope that one of them will amass enough support to defeat party A from like-minded malcontents. The result is a winning candidate whose majority support is merely a facade. At the time I thought this made AV worse than FPTP, but I've since come to realise that the bugs in FPTP are a) worse still, and b) voting yes to AV opened the possibility of moving to a better system still, as compared to the situation we have now where that referendum with a sub-50% turnout will be regarded as a definitive vote in favour of FPTP over any system, which is errant nonsense of course but then what do you expect?
I delivered a talk on voting systems only last week so the idea is fairly fresh in my head. Really the whole issue is embedded in "what kind of democracy are we wanting to live in?" and even the TV debates can be seen in that context -- the clash of presidential-stlye debates v. the actual elections being constituency-based; while the voting system is likely to play heavily in the SNP's favour despite their having by definition no chance of winning outright, and despite having also by definition no support across the country, as compared with UKIP or the Lib Dems.
Constituencies are anyway still heavily gerrymandered, particularly in the Labour party's favour. The whole set of issues can be resolved at a stroke by switching to a system similar to that used in the European Elections; but of course this is likely to work somewhat against the Tory/ Labour parties, who are also the only ones who can implement any change. To top it all, the AV referendum almost certainly represented a cynical (and successful) attempt to kick any reform into the long grass for another generation or two.
I voted no, by the way, because I was concerned that AV allowed more tactical voting than FPTP. Specifically, if you do not want candidate A to win then you just tick every other box on the ballot (in any order) in the hope that one of them will amass enough support to defeat party A from like-minded malcontents. The result is a winning candidate whose majority support is merely a facade. At the time I thought this made AV worse than FPTP, but I've since come to realise that the bugs in FPTP are a) worse still, and b) voting yes to AV opened the possibility of moving to a better system still, as compared to the situation we have now where that referendum with a sub-50% turnout will be regarded as a definitive vote in favour of FPTP over any system, which is errant nonsense of course but then what do you expect?
"Kicked into the long grass" was the expression I was going to use in an earlier post but I changed tack and redrafted it.
How ironic that the long-held dream of the LibDems, one of the strongest things they had going for them got broken on the wheel after they, metaphorically, sold their souls for a shot at power.
As you rightly pointed out the only parties with a realistic prospect of driving through a reform bill are the ones with most to lose by doing so.
It's a pity we can't reinstate the monarchy, just for a decade or however long it takes for HMQ to put fair-play rules into force and force the current bunch go back to their PR careers. It is her government, after all!
:D
How ironic that the long-held dream of the LibDems, one of the strongest things they had going for them got broken on the wheel after they, metaphorically, sold their souls for a shot at power.
As you rightly pointed out the only parties with a realistic prospect of driving through a reform bill are the ones with most to lose by doing so.
It's a pity we can't reinstate the monarchy, just for a decade or however long it takes for HMQ to put fair-play rules into force and force the current bunch go back to their PR careers. It is her government, after all!
:D
AV is probably the least objectionable of PR systems, but still you can get the first choice of the largest section of voters being kept out simply because of negative, 'they're not getting in', attitudes, when each voter sees their choice knocked out; rather than having a positive, 'I want them', attitude being the deciding factor. I do not see the additional complication adds sufficient (anything ?) over a simple FPTP system to be worth changing the existing system. And, of course, it still doesn't discourage party groupings, which would be something worth achieving.
AV is not a PR system at all, OG. As to least objectionable, I'm not sure why PR should be more objectionable. The aim for a democratic voting system, I would have thought, is to reflect the will of the people. A PR system achieves this in a way that FPTP, or indeed most single-constituency voting systems, do not.
And the fact is OG that at the moment the will of the people is evidently not for single-party rule. The present coalition may not have been what was wanted either, but consistently delivering single-party rule (and from only two parties at that, both of which are hemorrhaging support) is just blatantly against the will of the people.
And the fact is OG that at the moment the will of the people is evidently not for single-party rule. The present coalition may not have been what was wanted either, but consistently delivering single-party rule (and from only two parties at that, both of which are hemorrhaging support) is just blatantly against the will of the people.
Technically maybe not not it isn't FPTP so I class it with the other PR stuff trying to thwart the largest first choice pick.
A PR system most certainly does not reflect the will of the people. It is probably the furthest thing from it that can pretend it does. PR is actually anti-democratic. It is an abomination. In practical terms it doesn't allow you to vote for the person who is to represent you, which is precisely why it is not democratic. It effectively forces you to vote for a party and then someone else decides who will represent you and your area. And that is assuming that the party your area have chosen is even allowed to represent your area: if other parties are deemed to be under-represented nationally then it is always possible, depending on the system, that you get someone your didn't vote for.
You are electing a representative for a local area to the national government, it matters not if some area miles away voted differently. Parties are not being elected, individual representatives are. It is totally irrelevant if some party comes a close second everywhere.
So called representative democracy is undemocratic enough, worse when they form parties between them; but PR is not the will of anyone.
If people are not voting, then IMO it is clearly because there is no real alternative choice. And that no matter who gets in they need not do as they promised, claiming changing times / different circumstances. Or will delay any real action/progress until it is too late. And one has to take a whole bundle of policies as one package knowing the party who gets in will falsely claim they have a mandate to do all the things no sane person wants them to touch with a bargepole. There is no will of the people represented in government today, it is a farce; and anything suggested as change tends to make things worse, or at best make no difference.
With so many people in the nation no individual can expect to get everything they would like done, but at present folk have no effect whatsoever. And people are less naive today that they were generations ago when our leaders were kowtowed to and revered/trusted. They now know how irrelevant they are to the decision process. So instead of voting they either retain their enthusiasm and join pressure groups instead, or more likely they lose the will to fight for a say, and basically give up.
A PR system most certainly does not reflect the will of the people. It is probably the furthest thing from it that can pretend it does. PR is actually anti-democratic. It is an abomination. In practical terms it doesn't allow you to vote for the person who is to represent you, which is precisely why it is not democratic. It effectively forces you to vote for a party and then someone else decides who will represent you and your area. And that is assuming that the party your area have chosen is even allowed to represent your area: if other parties are deemed to be under-represented nationally then it is always possible, depending on the system, that you get someone your didn't vote for.
You are electing a representative for a local area to the national government, it matters not if some area miles away voted differently. Parties are not being elected, individual representatives are. It is totally irrelevant if some party comes a close second everywhere.
So called representative democracy is undemocratic enough, worse when they form parties between them; but PR is not the will of anyone.
If people are not voting, then IMO it is clearly because there is no real alternative choice. And that no matter who gets in they need not do as they promised, claiming changing times / different circumstances. Or will delay any real action/progress until it is too late. And one has to take a whole bundle of policies as one package knowing the party who gets in will falsely claim they have a mandate to do all the things no sane person wants them to touch with a bargepole. There is no will of the people represented in government today, it is a farce; and anything suggested as change tends to make things worse, or at best make no difference.
With so many people in the nation no individual can expect to get everything they would like done, but at present folk have no effect whatsoever. And people are less naive today that they were generations ago when our leaders were kowtowed to and revered/trusted. They now know how irrelevant they are to the decision process. So instead of voting they either retain their enthusiasm and join pressure groups instead, or more likely they lose the will to fight for a say, and basically give up.
The problem with that assassination of PR is that it overlooks that there are ways of doing PR on a scale such that people do get a choice over who represents them, at least to some extent, so that this connection to the MP that is apparently so important can be preserved. Rather like the misunderstanding of how AV works, it seems that many people have a warped idea of how PR might work.
But even if not, why does it matter? The "constituency link" that is so important to some people is becoming an increasing irrelevance, as Parliament spends its time debating on global and national issues far more than on any local ones that would be relevant to MPs and their constituents. Never mind the point that the answer a vast majority of people would give in answer to "Who are you voting for?" would name a party. I'm voting UKIP or for Labour, or for the Green Party, and who is actually standing for that party in your constituency gets pushed by the wayside. There remain some who do, who have developed a like or dislike for their local MP that goes beyond the party they stand for (which perhaps explains why Lembit Opik, among others, lost his seat).
No, the issue of which party we vote for is becoming ever more relevant over the MP that we elect. Hence, incidentally, this recent clamour for TV debates, which represent a move towards presidential and party-based politics.
Under these circumstances, regardless of the practical problems of a pure PR, it certainly does represent a more accurate reflection of what people are actually voting for. And, because it can still be done in a manner that captures some level of control over the actual MPs, it can be done in a way that has the best of both worlds.
Plurality voting (largest first-choice pick) has so many flaws that even if you were insistent on preserving the consituency side you should still discard it, because the largest "first-choice" pick is, with the increasing number of parties, becoming a narrow winner among four parties. In a constituency with votes for parties of 13,000, 13,001, 12,999, 13,000, how can anyone seriously think that the person with 13,001 votes deserves to win, and represent his constituency just based on that result? It should be clear that he does not. Hence, something like AV, or some other system that grants voters the right to express not just one choice but many, and then attempts to find the candidate that is indeed preferred by most voters, rather than just winning a straight race by a nose.
FPTP does not deliver even close to what we want. As long as it persists, we will never get the politics or the politicians that the public is voting for.
But even if not, why does it matter? The "constituency link" that is so important to some people is becoming an increasing irrelevance, as Parliament spends its time debating on global and national issues far more than on any local ones that would be relevant to MPs and their constituents. Never mind the point that the answer a vast majority of people would give in answer to "Who are you voting for?" would name a party. I'm voting UKIP or for Labour, or for the Green Party, and who is actually standing for that party in your constituency gets pushed by the wayside. There remain some who do, who have developed a like or dislike for their local MP that goes beyond the party they stand for (which perhaps explains why Lembit Opik, among others, lost his seat).
No, the issue of which party we vote for is becoming ever more relevant over the MP that we elect. Hence, incidentally, this recent clamour for TV debates, which represent a move towards presidential and party-based politics.
Under these circumstances, regardless of the practical problems of a pure PR, it certainly does represent a more accurate reflection of what people are actually voting for. And, because it can still be done in a manner that captures some level of control over the actual MPs, it can be done in a way that has the best of both worlds.
Plurality voting (largest first-choice pick) has so many flaws that even if you were insistent on preserving the consituency side you should still discard it, because the largest "first-choice" pick is, with the increasing number of parties, becoming a narrow winner among four parties. In a constituency with votes for parties of 13,000, 13,001, 12,999, 13,000, how can anyone seriously think that the person with 13,001 votes deserves to win, and represent his constituency just based on that result? It should be clear that he does not. Hence, something like AV, or some other system that grants voters the right to express not just one choice but many, and then attempts to find the candidate that is indeed preferred by most voters, rather than just winning a straight race by a nose.
FPTP does not deliver even close to what we want. As long as it persists, we will never get the politics or the politicians that the public is voting for.
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
News9 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.