SF-SDLP tied on 20%

cdebru

MadsL wrote:

The PDs certainly do not represent the sentiments of the majority in this country, as they are clearly a minority party, yet they wield considerable power as has been pointed out in another thread. How is PR acting 'more democratically' in this country??

they are in coalition with fianna fail not in government on their own it just seems that way sometimes

the combined first preference vote of both parties and then transfers they recieved mean they were easily supported by over 50% of the electorate at the last general election also we have a more representative parliament of how the country voted when compared to for example the UK parliament and its first past the post where a 42% vote for the labour party gave them an overwhelming majority

the situation in scotland is worse out of 72 seats labour won 55 of them on a 43% share of the vote
snp won 5 seates on a 20% share of the vote
lib dems won twice as many seats 10 on 16% share of the vote
and the tories won 1 seat on a 15.5% share of the vote

hardly democracy in action

MadsL

FF achieved 41.5 percent of first preference votes last election.
The PD dropped 0.72% to 3.96% even while it doubled its seats from four to eight.


Is this somehow more 'democratic'?

cdebru

MadsL wrote:

FF achieved 41.5 percent of first preference votes last election.
The PD dropped 0.72% to 3.96% even while it doubled its seats from four to eight.


Is this somehow more 'democratic'?

yes because the pd vote was concentrated in a few constituencies


also compare fianna fails 41.5% of the vote and the percentage of the seats they won
as compared to the labour party in the uk which won roughly the same percentage of the vote but one a landslide victory with a massive majority in the house of commons

it is obvious that fianna fails representation in leinster house is more in line with how the country voted
while in a first past the post system the number of representatives elected can bear little or no relation to how the country voted

Roisin Dubh

MadsL wrote:

FF achieved 41.5 percent of first preference votes last election.
The PD dropped 0.72% to 3.96% even while it doubled its seats from four to eight.


Is this somehow more 'democratic'?

Because they got loads of transfers from FG voters who wanted to ensure that FF would not govern alone.

Victor

Regarding west tyrone or quite a few other constituencies, the real competition isn't between Natioanlist and Unionist, but Green -v- Green and Orange -v- Orange. If necessary, some normally unionist voters will vote SDLP to exclude SF from a seat (as happened in West Belfast in 1992(?)). NO doubt some nationalists will also vote UUP to exclude UKUP etc. and to a lesser degree DUP.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I am a Green person

Are you one of the big green people or a little green people?

Roisin Dubh

Victor wrote:

Regarding west tyrone or quite a few other constituencies, the real competition isn't between Natioanlist and Unionist, but Green -v- Green and Orange -v- Orange. If necessary, some normally unionist voters will vote SDLP to exclude SF from a seat (as happened in West Belfast in 1992(?)). NO doubt some nationalists will also vote UUP to exclude UKUP etc. and to a lesser degree DUP.



Are you one of the big green people or a little green people?

Big

cdebru

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Because they got loads of transfers from FG voters who wanted to ensure that FF would not govern alone.

they got loads of transfers from FF voters who wanted to ensure FF would not govern alone

MadsL

More democratic?

What an odd expression.

Either FPTP is a democratic system or it isn't. Which is it?

Victor

MadsL wrote:

Either FPTP is a democratic system or it isn't. Which is it?

It is democrratic, however in my opinion* it is unfairly unrepresentative of minority views.

* And the opinion of many others.

A Dub in Glasgo

MadsL wrote:

More democratic?

What an odd expression.

Either FPTP is a democratic system or it isn't. Which is it?

The STV PR system in the Republic is more representative of peoples opinions than the FPTP system as represented in the UK.

I have voted every time here in Glasgow since I came here and unless I voted for Labour, my vote was wasted as Labour have the majority of the FPTP votes. Don't forget that every constituency in the UK will only elect 1 MP therefore the guy who gets the most votes will get in even if the majority of electorate did not vote for him. This makes it extremely hard for 'minority' views to get a look in and there is very little avenue open for tactical voting.

cdebru

MadsL wrote:

More democratic?

What an odd expression.

Either FPTP is a democratic system or it isn't. Which is it?

it is undemocratic

cdebru

Victor wrote:

It is democrratic, however in my opinion* it is unfairly unrepresentative of minority views.

* And the opinion of many others.

why is it democratic can you explain


it is unrepresentative of majority views over 58% of the uk did not vote for the labour party yet they had a massive landslide win in 2001

167 more seats than all the other parties combined we obviously have a different view of what democracy means

sceptre

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The STV PR system in the Republic is more representative of peoples opinions than the FPTP system as represented in the UK.

Agreed.

cdebru wrote:

it is undemocratic

Not agreed - you still didn't answer my question (obviously you don't have to if you don't feel like it). You've demonstrated that it's less representative (like everyone else has said - can be nicely summed up by the ADiG quote above or by Victor's post) but I was asking how "less representative" (in the particular winner-takes-all sense of FPTP) necessarily means "undemocratic". By that reasoning the UK parliament is undemocratic which effectively makes it an undemocratic state.

cdebru

sceptre wrote:

Not agreed - you still didn't answer my question (obviously you don't have to if you don't feel like it). You've demonstrated that it's less representative (like everyone else has said - can be nicely summed up by the ADiG quote above or by Victor's post) but I was asking how "less representative" (in the particular winner-takes-all sense of FPTP) necessarily means "undemocratic". By that reasoning the UK parliament is undemocratic which effectively makes it an undemocratic state.

i wont disagree with you there the UK is an undemocratic state

it is not less representative it is unrepresentative

if democracy to you means having a vote then yes the people in the UK have a vote but so do the people in Iran so did people in the USSR neither democracies

having a vote is only part of democratic system the outcome of the vote has to be represntative of how the people voted otherwise it is not democratic

the current mp for perth in the UK recieved 29.71% of the vote that means over 70% of those who bothered to vote are being represented by someone they did not vote for

democracy literally means rule by the people that is not what is happening in the UK it is rule by 41% of the people
where large sections of the population are denied or have their voice limited by the system then it is undemocratic

Slutmonkey57b

Couldn't it be qually well argued that the PR system in this country is undemocratic because it hijacks my vote?

For example, in FPTP, I vote for candidate x. If more people vote for candidate y, then candidate y gets in. He may not have the majority if all the other candidates pooled their votes but he did get more votes than any other candidate, ie a majority.
Democracy, remember is a system designed to reflect the wishes of a majority, not of every single individual.

In PR, I vote for candidate x. Candidate x does not have enough votes to get in, so decides, completely arbitrarily and without consulting me to pass MY vote on to candidate y, who I indicated no preference for. Candidate y has now been elected by using my vote without any mandate from me at all. How exactly does abusing my vote constitute democracy?
Meanwhile, candidates a,b and c all get voted in "first time" on what amounts to a FPTP system by any other name.

Slutmonkey57b

cdebru wrote:

i wont disagree with you there the UK is an undemocratic state

the current mp for perth in the UK recieved 29.71% of the vote that means over 70% of those who bothered to vote are being represented by someone they did not vote for

You imply by that example that 30% voted for a candidate, while 70% voted against him. That is not true. 30% voted for him, while 70% voted for several different candidates, all of whom represent a different point of view. The point of a democracy is not that everyone gets represented, but that everyone has the chance to be represented, and that the views of the majority hold sway. The analogy with Iran is deeply flawed, because voters in Iran in reality have no chance to choose their representative.

If the voters in Perth really had that much of a problem with this, then the 70% who don't like their current MP can vote him out very easily. The fact that they don't is not a failure of the FPTP system so much as it is a failure of opposition parties to unite support against the incumbent.

Slutmonkey57b

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

This makes it extremely hard for 'minority' views to get a look in and there is very little avenue open for tactical voting.

How is "tactical voting" democratic?

cdebru

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Couldn't it be qually well argued that the PR system in this country is undemocratic because it hijacks my vote?

For example, in FPTP, I vote for candidate x. If more people vote for candidate y, then candidate y gets in. He may not have the majority if all the other candidates pooled their votes but he did get more votes than any other candidate, ie a majority.
Democracy, remember is a system designed to reflect the wishes of a majority, not of every single individual.

In PR, I vote for candidate x. Candidate x does not have enough votes to get in, so decides, completely arbitrarily and without consulting me to pass MY vote on to candidate y, who I indicated no preference for. Candidate y has now been elected by using my vote without any mandate from me at all. How exactly does abusing my vote constitute democracy?
Meanwhile, candidates a,b and c all get voted in "first time" on what amounts to a FPTP system by any other name.

sometimes your ignorance is breathtaking

in the system we use here stv the candidate does not decide how your vote goes YOU do that is what your 2nd 3rd etc preference is all about
if you plump just for no1 then your vote does not move anywhere

more people voting for a candidate is not a majority it is a simple majority not the same thing
a majority is over 50%


i suggest you learn about STV before you go and vote

cdebru

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

You imply by that example that 30% voted for a candidate, while 70% voted against him. That is not true. 30% voted for him, while 70% voted for several different candidates, all of whom represent a different point of view. The point of a democracy is not that everyone gets represented, but that everyone has the chance to be represented, and that the views of the majority hold sway. The analogy with Iran is deeply flawed, because voters in Iran in reality have no chance to choose their representative.

If the voters in Perth really had that much of a problem with this, then the 70% who don't like their current MP can vote him out very easily. The fact that they don't is not a failure of the FPTP system so much as it is a failure of opposition parties to unite support against the incumbent.

the views of the majority did not hold sway the majority would be over 50%

the point of democracy is that the views of as many as possible are represented not just the views of 29%

your solution to this problem would be for people to not vote for the person they want but to vote against the incumbent for the person who is most likely to be able to defeat the incumbent
how is that democracy or peoples views being represented it makes the anaolgy with Iran even closer as in people dont get to vote for the candidate who most represents their views but against the candidate who least represents their views

MadsL

the point of democracy is that the views of as many as possible are represented not just the views of 29%

Show me a democracy where this is NOT the case. Every electoral system has similar flaws, it doesn't mean they are 'undemocratic'.

Slutmonkey57b

Thank you for the correction -as correctly surmised, I don't vote by choice.

The intitial creators of democracy never intended for the views of as many as possible to be represented - only those they chose.

My solution is not for people to vote for someone they don't want to, but for someone to provide the 70% who are "disenfranchised" with a good reason to vote for one person instead of several.

Roisin Dubh

MadsL wrote:

Show me a democracy where this is NOT the case.

The Republic of Ireland - a state where you can get elected on 1% of the national vote.

cdebru

MadsL wrote:

Show me a democracy where this is NOT the case. Every electoral system has similar flaws, it doesn't mean they are 'undemocratic'.

countries that use PR rather than FPTP

cdebru

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Thank you for the correction -as correctly surmised, I don't vote by choice. .

if you don't vote then why hang around in the politics forum IMO if you couldn't be arsed voting then you deserve everything you get

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

The intitial creators of democracy never intended for the views of as many as possible to be represented - only those they chose..

no that was the creators of dictatorships, monarchies etc

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

My solution is not for people to vote for someone they don't want to, but for someone to provide the 70% who are "disenfranchised" with a good reason to vote for one person instead of several.

people should vote for whomever most closely represents their views to suggest that they should have to agree on a candidate is nonesense

MadsL

countries that use PR rather than FPTP

But by your own valuation democratic=where "the views of the majority did not hold sway the majority would be over 50%"

This is rarely the case in a PR situation and to my knowledge NEVER been the case in Ireland in modern times. So is Ireland also 'undemocratic'?

Where are you going with this???

My favourite quote on democracy btw is;
If Democracy worked, it would be illegal

MadsL

MadsL wrote:

But by your own valuation democratic=where "the views of the majority did not hold sway the majority would be over 50%"

This is rarely the case in a PR situation and to my knowledge NEVER been the case in Ireland in modern times. So is Ireland also 'undemocratic'?

Where are you going with this???

My favourite quote on democracy btw is;
If Democracy worked, it would be illegal

Well you see madsl, the thing you are not accounting for there is peoples third or second preferences etc.
Those are also the valid opinions of a voter so while a first preference total might never get past 50% ie it never reflects a majority of the voters...
It's when you look at the second and third preferences, you get a bigger picture and if it is with the help of these and it generally is, that most candidates are elected, then it is more valid to say that the majority are happy with the outcome of the election.

In a first past the post situation you cannot determine as acurately whether those that voted are reasonably happy with an outcome.
If voters are willing to transfer their vote to a 2nd or 3rd choice, its reasonable to assume that they are happy to do so-ergo a majority of voters should be happy rather than unhappy with the result of that.

With first past the post, unless the race is very tight, you either vote for the winner or have no say at all in who is elected.

MadsL

I take your point Earthman, but the suggestion I am refuting is that the FPTP system is somehow inherently 'undemocratic'. This is blatently absurd. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that there are some deep flaws with the UK system, but that is true with ANY electoral system bar a open forum where to be elected a 51% majority is required and vote is mandatory. PR is equally likely to produce a winner from a minority vote, even including transfers.

cdebru

MadsL wrote:

I take your point Earthman, but the suggestion I am refuting is that the FPTP system is somehow inherently 'undemocratic'. This is blatently absurd. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that there are some deep flaws with the UK system, but that is true with ANY electoral system bar a open forum where to be elected a 51% majority is required and vote is mandatory. PR is equally likely to produce a winner from a minority vote, even including transfers.

we also have multi seat constituencies which mean the views of far more people are taken into account

in a multiseat constituency rather than a single seat first past the post constituency far more people are represented by elected representatives

in a four seater constituency it is likely that over 75% and possibly alot higher have someone elected who was either their first or lower preference

taking the country as a whole when first and subsequent preferences are counted it would be definite that the goverment party or parties had secured over 50% support on some level

parties are usually fairly represented in proportion to their support

unlike in the uk where with 40% of the vote a party can acquire over 60% of the seats
a party like the lib dems can achieve nearly 20% of the vote and have less than 8 or 9 % of the seats
look how many independents there are in the UK none


if the voting system gives a unrepresentative parliament then it is undemocratic

MadsL

There was one Independent MP returned in the 2001 General Election - Dr. Richard Taylor, MP for Wyre Forest.

cdebru

i stand corrected 1 out of 659


look at the european elections in the uk were a pr list system is used
the green party secure 6% in 1999 and 2004 but in 2001 GE the greens could only manage 0.61%
the reason is because people are forced to vote for parties they dont support or waste their vote
in the USA the democrats still accuse ralph nader of depriving them of the presidency as if ralph nader did not have a right to run