[aldo_14]

Originally posted by IceFire

CBC runs the same thing when there's a Canadian election.  The system turn around is really quite quick.  I worked for Elections Canada in 2000 and its a very fast process...results come in for each area, done at a local station, everything is checked and rechecked, data is sent into the main system database and voila.

Frankly the whole US election system confuses me

The UK one I've never really studied in depth but it seems to be on the surface to be just as quick as the Canadian one (probably based on the UK version anyways).

THe UK (wide) system is ****ing stupid.  It's completely unrepresentative of the populace because MPs are returned in a first past the post system*.  So, for example, in this election;
Labour; 36% of the vote, 350-odd seats (MPs)
Conservative; 33% of the vote, 150-odd seats
Liberal Democrats; 22% of the vote, 50-odd seats.
(Scotland, incidentally, uses a system with a degree of proportional representation)

The worry for me is that we now have a parliament where the 2 main parties are pretty much equally right-wing and authoritarian.  I honestly suspect Labour only stay in power because of traditional voters who just haven't cottoned on to the fact that it's not a left wing or socialist-ish party any more.

*That is... the country is divided into something like 600 constituencies.  Each constituency returns an MP based on which candidate gets the majority of votes.  This means a party which has a massive number of votes, but finishes second in most seats it contests, will be woefully underrepresented

[karajorma]

Quite frankly though I hate proportional representation more than the current system. If all the people in Bexley want to keep their MP who has already shown himself to be a tireless campaigner for local issues why should they be saddled with one from a different party just because a bunch of people elsewhere in the country voted for a different party?

On top of that PR tends to produce goverments who can't do anything because they have no majority (It also tends to produce hung parliments more often which means that you end up with some tiny party that no one cared that much about having an inordinate amount of power because the biggest party needs them on its side)

Lastly PR allows wankers like the BNP in.


I prefer the current system. If you can't pursuade a majority of people in your constituency to support you then why the hell should you be sent to parliment to represent them?

Oh and in case you think I'm saying that all to protect my interests I voted Lib Dem and thus was actually one of the biggest losers from the current electoral system.

[vyper]

Oddly I'm actually against PR too.

Anyway, there's a saying: In Glasgow you could put a collie dog up for election, and so long as it was wearing a labour rosette it would win.

That is the problem with the UK as a whole: People voting labour because it's expected of them, because their father did, etc. They're so busy trying to fit in that they haven't actually looked at what's going on.

[Clave]

Originally posted by Rictor
5 more years of Tony boy.

Say...you guys wouldn't happen to be up for a coup, would you?

You really want the likes of Thatcher back again?

Or god help us, John Major???  there was  a nobody, doing nothing...

Tony may be an tit, but he's not a wimp or a psycho - that said, this is his last chance to get some stuff done properly and then he's out...

I have switched, switched, and switched again in the last few elections, voting Conservative, Conservative, Conservative, Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, and finally Labour this time...

Oh, and PR is a good thing....in theory....

[Rictor]

As completely insane as it is of me to say it, I actually think Lebanon is on to something with their political sysem. Imagine if whichever party wins gets to fill the office of Prime Minister (or President, whichever is more important) and other key offices, but then the opposition party gets to name a few ministers from their own party, not enough to derail the plans of the winning party, but enough to provide some sort of check and balance against misuse of power. Hell, you could even have the 3rd place winners fill some ministry or another.

Not that it would make a difference most of the time, since both major parties, both in the UK and the US, as well as to a lesser extent Canada, seem to be dedicated to interventionism and generally neoliberal economic policies, but in theory it sounds like a good idea.

[Fineus]

Originally posted by vyper
That is the problem with the UK as a whole: People voting labour because it's expected of them, because their father did, etc. They're so busy trying to fit in that they haven't actually looked at what's going on.

I know exactly what you mean.

I was asking someone a couple of days ago who they were voting for and they announced it was a secret. Now, I can understand that if they were worried I was going to try and sway them and their beliefs or something, but really I was just curious.

So it seems to me that the English are actually afraid of discovering that although they are friends, co-workers or relations of eachother - they may actually have differing political views.

The result of this - or so it seems to me - is that England stands no chance of political change for the better - as the masses are too damn scared of eachother and of the system to make it happen. So we quietly vote for the choices we have, not openly discussing what would be best for the country and trying to keep our heads down to avoid conflict. We are - essentially - cattle.

I realise that those who run our countries have the larger portion of power within that country, but the whole point of politicial freedom is that we should be able to say "no, these choices aren't good enough. We don't want these men to run the country and don't feel that any of the current candidates are fit to do the job". That's not revolution - in the great world of democracy - that should be our freedom of choice.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and everyone else has the right idea

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma
Quite frankly though I hate proportional representation more than the current system. If all the people in Bexley want to keep their MP who has already shown himself to be a tireless campaigner for local issues why should they be saddled with one from a different party just because a bunch of people elsewhere in the country voted for a different party?

On top of that PR tends to produce goverments who can't do anything because they have no majority (It also tends to produce hung parliments more often which means that you end up with some tiny party that no one cared that much about having an inordinate amount of power because the biggest party needs them on its side)

Lastly PR allows wankers like the BNP in.


I prefer the current system. If you can't pursuade a majority of people in your constituency to support you then why the hell should you be sent to parliment to represent them?

Oh and in case you think I'm saying that all to protect my interests I voted Lib Dem and thus was actually one of the biggest losers from the current electoral system.

Well, the Scottish solution - and i'm not implying this is perfect by any means - is to have a system where you elect a local MSP, and then select a regional vote for a party.

There are 73 MSPs representing individual constituences elected in first past the post style; 56 selected from party lists in the 8 electoral regions (i.e. 7 MSPs per region); and 7 elected from the Additional Member System (which is a form of PR).

On the one hand you do still end up with MSPs without a constituency.  On the other hand, a lot of people are completely disenfranchised under the current system.  My vote is currently completely worthless, as Labour holds a - as mentioned before - gargantuan lead in this constituency.  Effectively, I have no voice within the democratic process; in this sort of condition/situation, also, there is absolutely no impetus upon the incumbent to do anything particularly useful beyond lip-service because his majority is so safe.

It has, however, definately transformed it from being a 2-party system and IMO it's more representative of the general population than a straight first-past-most system... if more confusing.

EDIt; Scottish devolved parliament solution, to be precise.  I'm not sure what the Welsh do for their assembly.

[Flipside]

I still think members of parliament, including PM.  should have a pay-cap and not be allowed to work for any other interest whilst in Office. That'd sort out who's there for the politicis and who's there for the loot.

[aldo_14]

They shouldn't be allowed to vote on their pay rate, either.   Bring that to a referendum if it needs constant (non-inflation) alteration.

[Flipside]

I think what annoys me is that I got a Labour flyer saying that The Lib Dems cannot win this election, if just 1 in 50 people vote Lib Dem then Howard will get in by the back door!'

Now that, roughly translated says 'You know the Lib Dems are better than us, we know the Lib Dems are better than us, but you can't vote for them mwahahahaha!'

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by Rictor
As completely insane as it is of me to say it, I actually think Lebanon is on to something with their political sysem. Imagine if whichever party wins gets to fill the office of Prime Minister (or President, whichever is more important) and other key offices, but then the opposition party gets to name a few ministers from their own party, not enough to derail the plans of the winning party, but enough to provide some sort of check and balance against misuse of power. Hell, you could even have the 3rd place winners fill some ministry or another.

Not that it would make a difference most of the time, since both major parties, both in the UK and the US, as well as to a lesser extent Canada, seem to be dedicated to interventionism and generally neoliberal economic policies, but in theory it sounds like a good idea.

For a while in the US, the president didn't have a running mate. The loser of the election would become vice-president. I guess they saw this as counter-productive and did away with it.

At least people in your country vote for the third party enough that it actually looks like people vote for it. Not enough people here vote for a third party to make a dent in the system, except to allow one of the other parties to win.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, the Scottish solution - and i'm not implying this is perfect by any means - is to have a system where you elect a local MSP, and then select a regional vote for a party.

There are 73 MSPs representing individual constituences elected in first past the post style; 56 selected from party lists in the 8 electoral regions (i.e. 7 MSPs per region); and 7 elected from the Additional Member System (which is a form of PR).

On the one hand you do still end up with MSPs without a constituency.  On the other hand, a lot of people are completely disenfranchised under the current system.  My vote is currently completely worthless, as Labour holds a - as mentioned before - gargantuan lead in this constituency.  Effectively, I have no voice within the democratic process; in this sort of condition/situation, also, there is absolutely no impetus upon the incumbent to do anything particularly useful beyond lip-service because his majority is so safe.

It has, however, definately transformed it from being a 2-party system and IMO it's more representative of the general population than a straight first-past-most system... if more confusing.

EDIt; Scottish devolved parliament solution, to be precise.  I'm not sure what the Welsh do for their assembly.

Only problem with that is that unless you double the number of MPs you're going to have to make bigger constituencies which therefore end up doing a poorer job of representing the local people.

On top of that I think the last thing the country needs is more politicians.

The problem I don't want to face is a situation where due to the system every parliment is hung and all the governing ends up as government by commitee because of the divergent views of the colalitions needed to form a majority. That sort of thing tend to end up worse than one poor leader who at least steers the country in one direction.

Since I'm from south of the border we don't hear much about the Scottish parilment beyond the fact that they spent too much on their building. Have they actually done anything useful or is it just a talking shop?