So much for the rule of law ... - by *Zaccheus*
Aerothorn on 17/12/2006 at 16:53
I suppose the answer is "why not?" It's theoretically possible your vote could make a difference, while it's impossible your non-vote can do anything.
As for the "we don't know what they'd do", it seems like you know what Labour would do (they're doing it), what the Tories would do (they did it before and seem, from my perspectives as an ignorant American, to want to do it again), so you might as well vote Lib Dems.
I think one of the big reasons both the USA and the UK have such corrupt governments is the noted lack of proportional representation.
jay pettitt on 17/12/2006 at 18:05
Inline Image:
http://www.mrjay.org/pictures/politc.jpgI'm not sure proportional representation is going to save us, though I wouldn't say no if I had a say.
Quote:
It's theoretically possible your vote could make a difference, while it's impossible your non-vote can do anything.
Indeed, it could tip the balance and usher in a new and terrible era. Safer to stay at home I think. I would also not say no to the option of formally spoiling my ballot paper.
*Zaccheus* on 17/12/2006 at 18:39
What most people talking about "wasted votes" seem to forget is that voting for a sure winner is also a wasted vote because your vote
still makes no difference to the outcome. Only in the narrow case of tactical voting does it make sense not to vote for the party you favour.
I tend to vote for the green party if they field a candidate. At the very least my vote could make the difference between them loosing their deposit and keeping it.
Someone once said: "It is better to vote for something you want and not get it than to vote for something you don't want and get it."
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the mean time ... according to the UK's Independent newspaper
the PM's defence that stopping a Serious Fraud Office investigation was 'in the national interest' is unravelling:
(
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2081669.ece)
jay pettitt on 17/12/2006 at 18:49
I suppose voting green is the closest thing there is to formally spoiling one's ballot paper.
TheGreatGodPan on 18/12/2006 at 02:41
Quote Posted by Paz
And the person most closely associated with dubious BAE dealings during that period was ... *exciting drumroll* - yes, Mark Thatcher!
A fine, upstanding gentleman with no history of corruption whatsoever.
Was Mark the one who, along with a bunch of South African mercenaries, tried to overthrow some banana republic a little while back? If I was one of those irrational types that voted I'd vote for him.
I posted this a while back, but I still find the article (
http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/articles/articles-2005/050923mmp.htm) MMP Means Much More Paralysis an interesting take on the subject of FPP vs proportional systems.
Swiss Mercenary on 18/12/2006 at 03:17
You're shitting me, TGGP. Could the article you linked to possibly imply that multi-party rule may mean that there is sufficient opposition to unregulated exploitation, or, depending on how you want to term it, 'evolution' of the free market?
Could it possibly be that because of the greater variety of candidates and their mandates, fewer of them are backed by corporate interest groups?
mopgoblin on 18/12/2006 at 06:46
You're a fool if you believe that's a balanced or reasonable analysis. The Business Roundtable don't give a fuck about democracy or accountability, but they'll happily advocate anything that they think will improve their profits. In this case, they're upset that the lack of single-party governments would prevent the Roger Douglases and Ruth Richardsons of the future from going on crazy deregulation and asset sale binges.
Let's look at some past elections under FPP. In particular, consider the percent of all votes allocated to the parties' candidates compared with the number of seats the party receives: <ul><li>1978: Labour gets 40.4% of the votes, National gets 39.8%, Social Credit gets 16.1%. National gets 51 seats, Labour 40, Social Credit gets one.
<li>1981: Labour gets 39.0% of the votes, National gets 38.8%, Social Credit gets 20.7%. National gets 47 seats, Labour 43, Social Credit gets two. If National had not received a majority of the seats in either of these elections, Muldoon would not have had the chance to do such damage to the economy.
<li>1993: National gets 35.1% of the votes, Labour gets 34.7%, Alliance get 18.2%, New Zealand First gets 8.4%. National gets 50 seats, Labour 45, Alliance and New Zealand First get two each.</ul>Under MMP, the number of seats a party receives is normally within one seat of their proportion of the party votes for parties receiving at least 5% of the party vote (or winning at least one electorate). Overhangs, where the party vote would allocate fewer seats than the party receives from electorate candidates, are rare and do not break the system. Despite what the Business Roundtable would have you believe, out economy is fine after ten years of MMP, and a voter's influence is not limited to terrible choices between two (often equally detestable) candidates any more. Under FPP, if you lived in any electorate where one party had a significant majority, your vote had no effect on that election (your beloved "irrationality" in action!). Under MMP, the party vote has the same effect no matter where you live, which frees the (still relatively ineffective) electorate vote for a candidate you actually want to win, rather than whoever represents the major party that you consider the lesser of two evils.
*Zaccheus* on 18/12/2006 at 10:54
Interesting isn't the word. Bullshit describes it much better.
Let me first explain how the german system works. When you vote, you get two ballot papers, i.e. two votes. On the first vote you choose your local candidate - just like First-past-the-post in the UK. On the second vote you choose which party you favour - i.e. proportional representation. Using a weird and wonderful algorithm, the system automatically ensures that all the candidates who win a seat via the first vote will be included in the new parliament AND the percentage of seats each party has in parliament is proportional to the overall amount of second votes they received.
Quote:
It tends to throw up weak governments without strong mandates; gives small parties excessive influence in coalitions; institutionalises promise-breaking in post-election negotiations;
Right now we have a big coalition in Germany. So much for small parties dictating terms. Promises which are made on the bases of "if we win" are not promises if the win does not happen and a coalition is needed. Separate promises are made which include/exclude possible coalitions.
Quote:
gives power to central party hierarchies in drawing up lists
Independent candidates can stand in individual constituencies just like under FPTP. However PR makes it a lot more viable to form your own party and collect votes from accross the country rather than having to beat all other parties in one small area.
Quote:
so that candidates that are rejected in constituencies end up back in office
Only if the party in question receives a huge number of votes accross the whole country.
Quote:
perhaps most importantly, makes it difficult for voters to decisively throw out a failing government.
I fail to see how. Under PR, if 50% of the voters reject the ruling party then they loose their absolute majority. Under FPTP, Labour kept their absolute majority even though they only got around 35% of the votes.
scumble on 18/12/2006 at 12:51
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
I suppose the answer is "why not?" It's theoretically possible your vote could make a difference, while it's impossible your non-vote can do anything.
As for the "we don't know what they'd do", it seems like you know what Labour would do (they're doing it), what the Tories would do (they did it before and seem, from my perspectives as an ignorant American, to want to do it again), so you might as well vote Lib Dems.
I was really referring to the similarity of political platforms, which boils down to "we'll do the same thing, but better". The element of choice only comes in where there is an obvious difference between the people you get to vote for, and you have some chance of knowing something about the character of your prospective rulers. In '97 Tony Blair looked like a good kind of chap, but ultimately he was a self-centred egomaniac obsessed with having a big section in the history books, and saw the strategy being to tag along with the US in a foolish military adventure. It wasn't what I voted for.
Ultimately I feel like the central government is a foreign entity that I simply have to put up with, especially when it comes to foreign policy. It's remote and there seems to be little hope of influencing it in a fundamental way, as the epic demonstrations over the Iraq war demonstrated. Too much power in the hands of a small number of people who have far too much freedom in what they are permitted to get away with, and they aren't held responsible for the damage they cause. Afterwards they get to retire to a large country house with a big pension. There's something fundamentally wrong with this situation. Blair certainly thinks he's a top guy for sending soldiers to their death in some half-assed nation-building project.
