UK Election Arcana, Explained By Software 568
An anonymous reader writes "For the first time in 35 years the UK government is looking to be at risk of getting a hung or coalition government. (The most recent previous hung parliaments were in 1974 and 1929.) The voting rules are somewhat arcane and the votes this time are such that there are many strange possible outcomes and a surprisingly large number of permutations of coalitions that could be formed and political strategies that may go into their forming. There are at least 60 permutations, some more politically plausible than others. Adam Back wrote some software to work out the permutations, and lists some of the arcane factors affecting the outcome. If Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown chose to, it would appear even that he could simply refuse to resign, ostensibly trying to form a coalition indefinitely, maybe even forcing the Queen to dismiss the current government, which last happened in 1834 under King William IV."
Re:Silly Brits (Score:5, Interesting)
It's why we need to Take Back Parliament [takebackparliament.com] and get a fair voting system. I went to the protest in London [nyud.net] yesterday, and I encourage anyone that can to come to the next one, on Saturday (14:00, 15th May, Parliament Square, London).
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
2/ The conservatives and Liberal democrats do a deal, and make a joint platform. This is the only one that has got any possiblity of lasting. The tricky part is as the 3rd Party the Liberal Democrats want some form of proportial representation (which would double their seats in parlament). The conservatives don't want that at all. They like the current system. I don't know what is going to happen here. I guess the Lib Dems will blink "for the good of the coutry", and a deal will be done.
The other sticking point for the Lib Dems is Europe. They are very pro, the Conservatives are very anti.
There's strong public campaigns at the moment for the Lib Dems not to compromise on electoral reform -- after all this is a once in a generation opportunity.
Electoral reform is the one thing I want to see achieved in this parliament.
AV+ (Score:5, Interesting)
* Would lead to a more proportional result than first-past-the-post system , but would still give a built-in advantage to the largest party and allow one-party rule during landslide years.
* Would be more likely to prevent extremist parties or fringe parties from winning seats than entirely proportional systems. [No BNP!]
* Would lessen the necessity of tactical voting.
The Roy Jenkins Commission settled on this option.
Re:Arcane? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, your whole democracy is a patch. A hack. You still keep the queen around, of course, she has no political power and her role is to produce news for the tabloids that the illiterate of your country can follow. The queen in the UK = Oprah in the states. Except, that according to the law, the queen can still intervene. Her powers, while null in practice, are still intact on paper. Please remember the Fear of queen-intervention in Canada a few months ago, and a similar situation now in the UK. So, this arcane bitch that you keep for decorative purposes has actual power that she can use at any time. Off course, nobody will actually let her use it. The deal is: She gets to keep the crown and go to boring parties as long as she doesn't use her power. If she does, the people will kick her out in the blink of an eye.
So, that's what I call Arcane. That's an ugly hack. A workaround.
Off course, there are systems that are even more stupid and broken that the on in the UK, for instance, the electoral-college, two-party system in the US. /Disclaimer: I am neither from the States nor the UK.
Is this the M.P.L.A
Or is this the U.D.A
Or is this the I.R.A
I thought it was the U.K or just
another country
another council tenancy
Isn't it sad that Lyndon is doing ads for margarine, and that Dave Mustain said he won't do the cover of Anarchy in the UK anymore because he's now a stupid Christian?
Sorry to go off-topic ... my mind wonders ....
Re:Silly Brits (Score:0, Interesting)
Further, at least in the UK even the Conservatives aren't batshit crazy. Unless I've missed the coverage about how Gordon Brown is actually from Kenya and wants to kill your grandma whilst implanting the Mark Of The Beast into your forehead.
That's what passes for "conservative" nowadays in the US: one part racism, one part religious wingnuttery and one part radical anarchism disguised as Reagan worship.
Re:Silly Brits (Score:5, Interesting)
Those are valid points, but it is not as black and white as you make it sound.
First the two parties have not been stagnant "as long as anyone can remember". They have not even been stagnant over the last 1-2 decades. While one party will win and have need for only limited compromise with the losing party that does not mean no compromise or coalition has been formed. Rather the party platforms are fluid and coalitions are formed within the two parties with certain interests moving to the party that will best represent them.
For example, what do labor unions, gay men, women and environmentalists all have in common? They were not well represented by the Republicans when the Republicans where in power. They compromised and brought in other interests until the democratic party was strong enough to take power. Looking at the same party in different regions of the country will also show just how much compromise and coalition forming goes into the US parties.
Its not an ideal system certainly, but I would look at the electoral college and various senate problems as bigger problems than our current 2 party system.
Re:Silly Brits (Score:1, Interesting)
Further, at least in the UK even the Conservatives aren't batshit crazy. Unless I've missed the coverage about how Gordon Brown is actually from Kenya and wants to kill your grandma whilst implanting the Mark Of The Beast into your forehead.
That's what passes for "conservative" nowadays in the US: one part racism, one part religious wingnuttery and one part radical anarchism disguised as Reagan worship.
The reason the US conservatives aren't in power right now is because they are batshit crazy. Once they appear not to be batshit crazy then they will get power again. US voters really like conservatism in theory, and they have a really short memory.
Re:Silly Brits (Score:5, Interesting)
We had a similar proportional representation movement in Canada. It failed. Particularly for many of the reasons you mentioned. The biggest and most fatal flaw of proportional representation, in my opinion, is the lack of direct representation as you mentioned. This entails several unsavoury results:
- No local representation. Geography-based representation is huge for a country like Canada. Small communities need a voice. Although they may not have an equal voice in Parliament, at least they won't get ignored as they would in a proportional representation system.
- No accountability. In a FPTP (first past the post [wikipedia.org]) system, an MP is accountable to their electorate. If you F up, you will be voted out. In a proportional system, the parties decide who the MPs are, so even if an MP Fs up, they may not be replaced by the party.
- No attachment to electorate. This is related to both of the above. An attachment to their electorate means that, at least in principle and outwardly, MPs need to take into account the interests of their electorate. Of the people they represent. In a proportional representation system, MPs will not be representing the people. They will be representatives of their party.
The last point illustrates, I think, a very important, but also very subtle, difference. When you represent the people of your electorate, you have to at least have your electorate's interests in the back of your mind. You will ultimately be judged by the people. Even if you F up and still manage to keep the party's candidacy, the people may vote you out. However, when you represent your party, your boss is not the people, but the party's bigwigs. As long as you can keep the favour of your party, you will keep your seat. All you need to be concerned with is maintaining the party line, while the party does the PR for you.
There's almost no situation where a proportional representation system would beat out a FPTP system, in terms of keeping the people in charge in a democracy. I think a proportional representation system is only appealing because people don't really grasp all the concepts involved in a solid, democratic Parliamentary system. I'm not saying that FPTP is the ideal system, but it's the best that we have so far. Proportional representation falls short on so many aspects that it's just not worth any serious consideration. You'll notice that proportional representation movements are almost ubiquitously popular movements that don't have much expert or academic support. People who know the Parliamentary systems well know that it won't work.
Re:Silly Brits (Score:3, Interesting)
what coalitions actually mean is that the lunatic fringe (yes including the one trick pony pirate party who has nothing meaningful to say on things like EU tax rates, monetary policy, Ukraine or georgia membership in NATO/EU, muslim immigration to europe etc) gets a disproportionate share of power in exchange for not toppling the government, or they get a free reign on a collection of their particular issues, which may, on the whole, be disastrous for the country, but in the short term prop up one party.
In canada we have an even worse scenario. The minority conservatives essentially govern unopposed on all but the most serious of issues because the liberals are too spineless to risk losing another election. In this case we have a party with ~30% popular support governing like it has a majority.
In the UK case, a party - the lib dems, or (god help them) collection of small fringe parties have been handed the power to let the conservatives or theoretically Labour govern. The vast majority of britons looked at what the lib dems offered, said 'he looks nice but no thanks' and actually reduced their vote share - yet they could get cabinet seats. Even worse would be the scenario of say a conservative coalition propped up by the UKIP, SNP etc. (that's the UK independence party and the scottish nationalists party) who at least have opinions on a broad range of issues, but are mostly out of touch with reality. Of course they'd also need to throw some northern ireland only parties in (sinn fein, the democratic unionist party etc..). An impossible mix as I've presented it but one could pick and choose a few from the list.
The EU is a great example of a full on multi party system. The term unmitigated disaster doesn't do it justice. There's a reason everything is so unwieldingly slow as to not get anything useful done on time. Every fringe group gets it's piece of the pie in subsidies and delays so that very little useful is ever actually accomplished. The vision of a united europe acting in concert for the good of it's people and the world is trampled on daily by a bunch of local politians in a trans-federal office asking for 'mine mine mine' at the expense of everyone else - and they're given it to keep coalitions together.
Multi party systems either waffle around in indecesion until eventually a majority is formed (good or bad), or are ruled by a minority acting like a majority due to the incompetent complicity of other parties. Both of these scenarios should be avoided vigorously. The hung parliments of the UK in the 70's led to much of the disastrous state the country was in during the 80's when Thatcher took over, and had put them in the position of needing much more radical and expensive reform than had it been done gradually in the first place. A coalition of lib dem and conservative will see the UK budget funding priorities of two groups at once rather than one, leaving no one partiuclarly happy and the public purse that much worse off (which given it's current state is a sad commentary).
With governments it matters less which party is in charge, than there being only one group in charge. If you cannot pass a budget the government shuts down, which is, despite the libertarian bent on /. is an extremely bad thing to have happen. Major strategic priorites (whether it be nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers like currently in britain or the environment and the budget in the US) get more or less ignored until a majority is formed to pick up the pieces. It matters less to your employer (even if that's you) what healthcare plan is being chosen, as long as they know which one it is, they can prepare for it, and that is only one of many examples.
At every stage people should resist proportial representation and multi party systems - for all of the things wrong with the US system, and there are many, at least one of the parties is actually able to make decisions and pass budgets. Indecision is the enemy of future planning.
I realize the pirate party is
Re:Silly Brits (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't speak for the parent poster but personally I'm working on it [pirate-party.us].
We just launched a new site so the forums are a bit sparse. We're still working out the kinks in the organization and it sure will be a long hard road but at least I feel like I'm finally doing something about it instead of bitching on the internet and getting pepper sprayed at protests.
Re:Silly Brits (Score:1, Interesting)
Take a good look at what happens in Israel, and you'll learn a few good lessons.
The coalition creation process has led, slowly and inevitably, to the point there are twelve (12, dozen) parties in the parliament, the largest two having ~22% of the votes each. Everybody hates it, one of the reasons being one of the religious parties (there are three of those, the largest getting ~10% of the votes at best) is *always* in the government, while the arab parties (there are three of those as well, getting ~10% of the votes all together) are *always* out of the goverment.
[The late prime minister Rabin had, for a while, a minority coalition, which was stable because the arab parties would not dare vote against a left wing coalition and let a right wing coalition rise. Nice trick - keep them out of the coalition, yet force them to support it.]
Because the coalition is so unstable, it's rare that a government actually survives a full term. This has led to a temporary fix, in which the prime minister was elected separately. He still had to make a coalition, so nothing changed.
The only fix is to avoid the need for a coalition to begin with, which means either separate elections for the executing branch (as in the U.S.), or changing the elections process so as to guarantee one of the parties has a majority (as in the U.S.)
Re:Silly Brits (Score:3, Interesting)
To make British politics work for its citizens a system of proportional representation is needed.
The current system forces you to vote for the party you think can defeat the party you really detest.
Luckily for me I chose non of the above and left the UK however as I found out a couple of days ago I can vote in British Elections for fifteen years after leaving where I was last registered.
In a system of proportional representation you finally get the chance to have a representative that more closely aligns with your views. Labour would probably lose my vote unless I had faith in the particular candidate and that realistically means he/she will have experience in local politics in the city or county councils.
Dumping a candidate on an area by the national party will become more difficult again a plus point.
The trouble is like turkeys the labour and conservative parties will not want to vote for christmas but here's my take on the current situation.
The conservatives have the most number of seats so the liberals have to be prepared to talk to them but the conservatives will not agree to proportional representation which they know will result in they never having a majority government again.
Having offered to attempt to form a government with the conservatives but failing due to no proportional representation. Nick Cleg is forced to work with the labour party who will go for proportional representation (at least they set up regional assemblies). It is unlikely that Gordon Brown can remain as prime minister , he makes a better chancellor to be honest.
The smaller parties will go along with this at least until PR becomes law before declaring a vote of no confidence and getting a fresh general election.
I don't think Nick Cleg can form an alliance with the conservatives without a deal for PR on the table his party will not let him blow this chance for real reform.
His party cannot allow him because without a deal they will hemorrhage seats in the next general election.
The current system largely splits the population into the rich and the poor and both parties kick the oppositions supporters in the nuts when they come to power. Thats not really strong government , whats needed is leadership that works for the country as a whole.
I really hope PR is introduced as it will muzzle MP's any get greedy and they can be replaced with a number of alternative candidates.
Re:Silly Brits (Score:3, Interesting)
So what you're saying is that this guy would get elected because he had an enormous majority of voter support... ... and the problem is?
Hermann Göring [wikipedia.org] was a fan of "First Past The Post" - at Nuremburg he said that if Germany had had a FPTP system like Britain's or the USA's, the Nazi Party would have taken every seat in the Reichstag at the elections. As it was they only got 37% of the vote, and rose to absolute power by subverting the system rather than by votes. Regardless, Proportional Representation did actually work to give them only a representative number of seats to their 37% vote, rather than the 100% they'd have had in Britain.
So, the point is that it would be nice to have a political system that gives a single political party that represents 37% of the electorate only 37% of the power in running the country. A political system where 37% translates to 100% of the power, completely ignoring the desires of the other 63%, is a bit odd. Unfortunately, people tend to only arrive at this point of view when their favoured party loses.
Re:Silly Brits (Score:1, Interesting)
What does the electoral college have to do with Senate shenanigans? The EC is only used for electing the President; Senators are elected in a direct popular vote from the citizens of their home state. Citizens vote for the exact person, listed right there on the ballot, and whichever one candidate gets the most votes wins.
In fact, there is nothing in the system of election for Senators and Representatives and Governors that inherently reinforces a two party system. IMO, the US's other parties just suffer from incredibly poor planning - why the hell do they focus on the Presidential election so much and not on the local ones? If Independents can and do win Senate and House seats and Governorships, that means the so could an actual party. And if I recall correctly, during periods where the US has had more than two significant parties, those parties rose and fell based on gaining and losing seats in Congress first, not by swooping in out of nowhere to take the Presidency.
I note that the most recent plausible third-party candidate was Perot (just under 20% of the popular vote, nationally, and as high as 30% in some states). Had a movement with that much momentum instead gone after state legislatures, state governors, and seats in congress? It'd probably have a good 5-20% of Congress today. (I'm not sure where the tipping point of new party growth is - at some point a party that gets big enough should siphon defectors from the big two...)