NationStates Jolt Archive

I live in Australia, where politics is dominated by two parties, but minor parties have a substantive role. I like the system, we can vote for a minor party without fear of wasting our votes (I'll come back to this).

In US and the UK the game is different. The game is dominate absolutely dominated by the two parties, a vote for a third party is inherently wasted (even for the Liberal Democrats).

Do people in the US and the UK want a real multiparty system, or is two good enough?

To create a true multiparty system, electoral change would be required, but the big two in each country seem to have no interest in leaving the system of "first past the post single member pluralities".

To split up that last expression:
First past the post: Most votes in a seat win the seat
Single member pluralities: Voting occurs in individual regions, electing each seat seperately.

Now to reform, would you risk it?

Preferential voting (used in Australia): This wouldn't go a along way to creating a multiparty system, but it is a good step. Instead of marking a single box, preferences are number. Lets say I'm a left wing American. I might really want to vote for Ralph Nader, but I realise the race is between Kerry and Bush so instead I vote Kerry. Under preferential voting, I would mark Nader as 1 and Kerry as 2. When the votes are counted, to begin with I vote for Nader, but after initial counting, it is clear Nader has the least votes, so Nader is removed from the list, so I end up voting Kerry anyway. Preference are continually redistributed until someone has an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, not just the MOST votes. This means some people might actually vote for a third party (or two or three) without fear of wasting their vote.

Proportional Representation (used in the Australian Senate, not the House of Reps): Name says it all, proportion of votes equals proportion of seats. Region based seats, with one member per area, forces seats into the hands of two parties. Proportional representation, spreads the seats out far more equally, although there are no longer 'local' representatives.

So what do people think, especially in the UK and US?

In the Netherlands we have proportional representation. But I heard we might change it to system where you also can have local representatives and proportional representation. But I don't know the details and I don't have a link (yet).

I favour proportional representation. That way the minor parties, such as the Greens, will get a number of seats, according to the percentage of votes they get. The way it is now, it's almost impossible for minor parties to break the lower house stranglehold of the Labour & Liberal parties.

The idea of representative democracy is that each citizen has a representative in the governmnet, who votes on issues etc for that citizen. If you move away from single member pluralities, the citizen loses their tie with the representative.
In the UK or the US you know who is your MP or Rep. In Australia is thisa the case? If you have a problem that would need a change in legislation, do you know who to go to? I.E. Do you have someone who represents you?

Under PR, this does not happen, under a single transferrable vote system, this does not happen. Breaking the link between the members of the legislative body with the grass roots electorate seems to me to be too high a price to pay to have some more minority parties included in the system.

Currently we have seats, the same as the UK system, where we vote for the local member, who then represents us in the House of Commons (Lower House). On ther other hand we have proportional representation in the Senate (Upper House). The problem is that only candidates from the two major parties get elected to the Lower House, due to the way the system works. Only in exceptional circumstances does a minor party candidate get into the Lower House. The minor parties do get people elected into the Upper House, but the real power is in the Lower House. The Upper House only approves, rejects or amends legislation, it can't propose a bill.

I'd like to see the US adopt a mixed system with a parallel supplementary member system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_voting) and an additional member system.

Mixed systems (especially the SM system) deal with Alien Born's question of knowing who your MP or rep. is, but add a healthy leavening element.

I'd like to see the US adopt a mixed system with a parallel supplementary member system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_voting) and an additional member system.

Mixed systems (especially the SM system) deal with Alien Born's question of knowing who your MP or rep. is, but add a healthy leavening element.

That sounds like quite a good idea. Is that the system where you are?

I'd like to see the US adopt a mixed system with a parallel supplementary member system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_voting) and an additional member system.

Mixed systems (especially the SM system) deal with Alien Born's question of knowing who your MP or rep. is, but add a healthy leavening element.

This does resolve the problem somewhat at the price of creating two distinct types on member of the legislature. One group who are representatives of the electorate wiht a constituency to deal with, and another group who do not have this responsability.

Then there is the second, and eternal problem with PR type systems, which is that the balance of power nearly always rests with the minority. Thus negating the principles of democracy to start with. In a mixed system this is as likely to happen as it is in a pure PR system.

I still prefer FPP systems as being clear, easy to undersatand, and less prone to rigging than any other system (Except by boudary commission manipulation, but that is another discussion)

Let us look at the make up of the parliaments of the big countries using this Mixed system. There are three major countries that use it:
LDP 237, DPJ 177, Komeito 34, JCP 9, SDP 6, NCP 4, others 13
PRI 222, PAN 151, PRD 95, PVEM 17, PT 6, CD 5, unassigned 4;
United Russia 222, CPRF 53, LDPR 38, Motherland 37, People's Party 19, Yabloko 4, Union of Rightist Forces 2, other 7, independents 65, repeat election required 3
(all figures from CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html) )

Country...Largest Party...The rest
Japan......237................243
Mexico....222.................278
Russia.....222.................228

In none of these countries is the balance of power held by the most popular party. In each case a coalition of little groups, each with few supporters, that may be as inimical to each other as a neo nazi group and a communist group can overrule the will of a large block of the population. The electorate gets lost in these systems. The political decisions hapen in closed door meetings where alliances between political enemies are forged in the name of personal power.

The electorate gets lost in these systems. The political decisions hapen in closed door meetings where alliances between political enemies are forged in the name of personal power.

The electorate gets lost in our system too though. The way it pans out, your vote ends up with one of the two major parties anyway. I prefer the idea of a parliament where a party gets 10% of the seats if they get 10% of the popular vote. To me that seems are more representative democracy.

Canada has 2 major parties: the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, with 2 minor but influential parties: the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois

Dictatorship.

God, I don't feel like gpoing through all of those steps.

In none of these countries is the balance of power held by the most popular party. In each case a coalition of little groups, each with few supporters, that may be as inimical to each other as a neo nazi group and a communist group can overrule the will of a large block of the population. The electorate gets lost in these systems. The political decisions hapen in closed door meetings where alliances between political enemies are forged in the name of personal power.
Which is noticeably different from the US how?

I live in Australia, where politics is dominated by two parties, but minor parties have a substantive role. I like the system, we can vote for a minor party without fear of wasting our votes (I'll come back to this).

In US and the UK the game is different. The game is dominate absolutely dominated by the two parties, a vote for a third party is inherently wasted (even for the Liberal Democrats).

Do people in the US and the UK want a real multiparty system, or is two good enough?

To create a true multiparty system, electoral change would be required, but the big two in each country seem to have no interest in leaving the system of "first past the post single member pluralities".

To split up that last expression:
First past the post: Most votes in a seat win the seat
Single member pluralities: Voting occurs in individual regions, electing each seat seperately.

Now to reform, would you risk it?

Preferential voting (used in Australia): This wouldn't go a along way to creating a multiparty system, but it is a good step. Instead of marking a single box, preferences are number. Lets say I'm a left wing American. I might really want to vote for Ralph Nader, but I realise the race is between Kerry and Bush so instead I vote Kerry. Under preferential voting, I would mark Nader as 1 and Kerry as 2. When the votes are counted, to begin with I vote for Nader, but after initial counting, it is clear Nader has the least votes, so Nader is removed from the list, so I end up voting Kerry anyway. Preference are continually redistributed until someone has an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, not just the MOST votes. This means some people might actually vote for a third party (or two or three) without fear of wasting their vote.

Proportional Representation (used in the Australian Senate, not the House of Reps): Name says it all, proportion of votes equals proportion of seats. Region based seats, with one member per area, forces seats into the hands of two parties. Proportional representation, spreads the seats out far more equally, although there are no longer 'local' representatives.

So what do people think, especially in the UK and US?
I'm quite happy with two major political parties, especially after watching some other countries lurch from left to right and back again because of minor parties having too much influence over the major ones. If a minor party in the US begins to attract a significant number of members, one or both of the major parties will pick up the minor party's most popular platform planks and "steal their thunder." This retains the stability of a two-party system while making allowances for new politcal movements.

I'm quite happy with two major political parties, especially after watching some other countries lurch from left to right and back again because of minor parties having too much influence over the major ones. If a minor party in the US begins to attract a significant number of members, one or both of the major parties will pick up the minor party's most popular platform planks and "steal their thunder." This retains the stability of a two-party system while making allowances for new politcal movements.
No it doesn't. Claiming you support the same thing as the third party is one thing; however, in our government, that is just a front and no one has any intention of carrying on behind closed doors along those lines

To clarify some issues regarding my model nation Australia.

In the lower house we have single member pluralities, our local representatives, and also preferential voting. This means that the house is dominated by either the Conservative Coalition (Nationals and Liberals) or the Labor party. The three party lower house system is due to preferential voting. Otherwise the Liberals and Nationals would wipe each other out in FPP and Labor would always win until one party quit.

In the upperhouse we use proportional representation and preferential voting, so minor parties like the Democrats tend to gain the balance of power, forcing the government to have support of more than their to pass legislation.

Myths: Multi-party systems are inherently unstable.
Not true, countries with Multi-Party Systems (MPS) are generally unstable due to deep seated social differences, and multiparty systems try to give a method of venting these cleavages. Multiparty systems have stopped many European nations having civil wars.

First past the post is less likely to be rigged
No. Thats all there is to it. Australian elections are heavily scrutinised and having worked in a polling placed, there is no way to rig preferential votes more than first past the post

you may wish to come back to this discussion after the UK general election in may this year, especially with regards to the liberal democrats. general polls suggest that they may be ones to watch at this election.

and whatever the system, a vote cast is never a vote wasted even if it's for a minor candidate. it's this mentality that means that people don't vote for what they really want for. which means that the result of the election is never representative of the wishes of the people

Which is noticeably different from the US how?

I wouldn't know. I'm not from the US.

I do prefer a system where you have parties that represent some sort of political ideology. (Generally these will be from a range of left, right, libertarian, centrist)
One of these gains a majority for a term and the country is run according to one ideology for that period. What happens with coalition governments is worse than any one ideology, even the one diametrically opposed to your view, as there is no coherent policy, and no mid term planning is possible.

It does not have to be a two party system, but I have real difficulties with coalition governments (anyone other than me remember the days of the liblab pact in the UK?)

The idea of representative democracy is that each citizen has a representative in the governmnet, who votes on issues etc for that citizen. If you move away from single member pluralities, the citizen loses their tie with the representative.

of course, that leaves out people like myself who could never possibly be represented by the people who have historically been my representatives. even if i did agree with representative politics, henry hyde - who used to be my rep in the u.s. house before the recent redistricting - has pretty much nothing in common with me and in my perfect world would never be in any position to make any decisions at all. a tie to a particular individual representative is of no use when your rep sucks and is in a safe seat.

of course, that leaves out people like myself who could never possibly be represented by the people who have historically been my representatives. even if i did agree with representative politics, henry hyde - who used to be my rep in the u.s. house before the recent redistricting - has pretty much nothing in common with me and in my perfect world would never be in any position to make any decisions at all. a tie to a particular individual representative is of no use when your rep sucks and is in a safe seat.


Whoa. Represent you here does not mean think the same way as you. It means that if you have a problem that requires legislation or whatever, he, or she, has an obligation to deal with it. They are, by being the member of the legislative body for your constituency, your representative. It is not about the decisions, it is about you having someone who is obligated to you.

it is about you having someone who is obligated to you.

and henry hyde felt absolutely no obligation to even properly respond to me and my concerns the times i brought them up to him. representation by an individual aint all it's cracked up to be.

and henry hyde felt absolutely no obligation to even properly respond to me and my concerns the times i brought them up to him. representation by an individual aint all it's cracked up to be.

Yeah, true. But at least you know who is at fault, can publicise it, never vote for him again. Under a PR system, you don't even know who you are voting for.

Yeah, true. But at least you know who is at fault, can publicise it, never vote for him again. Under a PR system, you don't even know who you are voting for.

Yes you do. I know (not personally) a lot of the senators, and people on the ballot papers.

In Australia when you vote for Green/Liberal/Labor/Democrat you know exactly what your getting (if you pay any attention to the news).

I'm supposing your American, in most countries party loyalty is very strong, local representives and senators tend to do exactly what the party leader does. As I understand, American parties are loss associations of independent candidates by other nations measures.

Yes you do. I know (not personally) a lot of the senators, and people on the ballot papers.

In Australia when you vote for Green/Liberal/Labor/Democrat you know exactly what your getting (if you pay any attention to the news).

I'm supposing your American, in most countries party loyalty is very strong, local representives and senators tend to do exactly what the party leader does. As I understand, American parties are loss associations of independent candidates by other nations measures.

No. I'm British, but live in Brazil.
What I was saying about not knowing who you are voting for, is that you do not know which candidate will receive your vote. You may agfree with a particular position or manifesto, but dislike one or two of the members of that party for other reasons. (You could have a pathological hatred of men with beards, for instance, to trivialise this a lot). Under PR it could be your vote that places one of these hated indivciduals into the legislature. Under FFP this can not happen. Who, in this is a personal who, not a party political who.

PR depersonalises politics, it removes the link between the voter and the elected member.

the problem with a system of many major parties (especially in a winner-take-all government) is that it takes a relatively small number of people to make a majority.

in a two party system(where the parties recieve approxametly equal number of votes): 49%, 51%

51% takes the majority, and effectively makes all the decisions for the rest of the nation

in a five party system (where the parties recieve approxametly equal number of votes): 19%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 21%

21% takes the majority.

that's ridiculous.

[/story]

In New Zealand we’ve been Proportional Representation for 9 years. MMP delivers one hell of a lot more representation than FPP ever did, and it makes for more exciting elections.

I notice a lot of people are saying FPP or PR, but these aren't opposites, in fact they are quite often both used.

Proportional Representation is the opposite of Single Member Constituencies
Preferential Voting is the opposite of First Past the Post

Also in PR you can pick specific candidates from specific parties. Many Australians number their ballots backwards to cheese off vote counters.

I notice a lot of people are saying FPP or PR, but these aren't opposites, in fact they are quite often both used.

Proportional Representation is the opposite of Single Member Constituencies
Preferential Voting is the opposite of First Past the Post

Also in PR you can pick specific candidates from specific parties. Many Australians number their ballots backwards to cheese off vote counters.

Yeah, there's a point.

I quite like the Australian system, some British elements, other American elements and whatever else we think will work.:)

I quite like the Australian system, some British elements, other American elements and whatever else we think will work.:)

I agree, the Australian system is good, but that could be just me trying to justify my own system. I would like to see PR in the lower house but and SMP in the Senate.

Yeah, there's a point.

Having worked for the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) during the last Federal election I can assure you not to worry. It does not cheese us off, it makes little diffrence and very few do it. Most people go above the line, although personally I always go below.

I usually do below the line. I don't like the shitty preference deals the major parties do, ie Labour preferencing Family First, a far right wing group. I voted Green last election, so I'm still bitter about it.

The Greens got about (from memory) 10% of the popular vote in the Victorian lower house votes, but won no seats. That's why I think we should have PR in the lower house.

Whoa. Represent you here does not mean think the same way as you. It means that if you have a problem that requires legislation or whatever, he, or she, has an obligation to deal with it. They are, by being the member of the legislative body for your constituency, your representative. It is not about the decisions, it is about you having someone who is obligated to you.

I find "local" representatives tend to be obliged to a party rather than a constituency. The member for Fremantle only visits his seat at election time.

That another problem with SMP, there are non-competitive seats, where parties don't even bother campaigning. If there was PR and more parties, every vote would be valuable regardless of location.

Imo. UK system got it best

you may wish to come back to this discussion after the UK general election in may this year, especially with regards to the liberal democrats. general polls suggest that they may be ones to watch at this election.

and whatever the system, a vote cast is never a vote wasted even if it's for a minor candidate. it's this mentality that means that people don't vote for what they really want for. which means that the result of the election is never representative of the wishes of the people

I agree, somewhat. I'll use some mock statistics to show my point.

In Seat X:
Liberal preferred: 30%
Labour preferred: 25%
Conservatve preferred: 45%

Under first past the post in this seat, it would seem Conservatives would win, despite the left having more support.

Thus one of the parties must go. Liberal prefereds may very well vote Labour to prevent a Conservative victory. Either way the Libs are stuffed How is this fair?

Under preferential voting, Labour Preferreds would probably vote:
Liberal: 2
Labour: 1
Conservate: 3

Under preferential voting, Liberal Preferreds would probably vote:
Liberal: 1
Labour: 2
Conservate: 3

Thus if everyone behaves perfectly, Labour would be eliminated first with only 25% of the vote. Thus all the Labour vote goes to the Liberals, giving a Liberal victory.

If you switch the Labour and Liberal Preferred statistics, then Liberals can still vote Liberal without a Tory victory.

Either way, the real majority (in this example) the left wins, despite the minority 'right' winning in first past the post.

Imo. UK system got it best

From what I understand, the UK is the least democratic 1st world democracy there is. Dictatorship of the centre, with no checks and balances, no real constitution, certainly no cement limits on the governments power.

From what I understand, the UK is the least democratic 1st world democracy there is. Dictatorship of the centre, with no checks and balances, no real constitution, certainly no cement limits on the governments power.

It does however have the best guarantee of democracy that can exist, the desire of the peole themselves. The UK has had a non legally enforced democracy of sorts since 1215. It is imbedded in the culture. It has checks and balances that are rather stronger in practice than those of the USA, for example. The courts and judiciary are independent of the politics. The executive (it is a monarchy remember) is also independent of the legislature to a degree that does not occur in republics. There is the risk of a rogue monarch, but that is less likely that a one party oligarchy arising in the USA, and it would be resolved quickly by popular action.

Democracy is probably strongest in the UK (but may be equalled in Switzerland and Scandinavia)

It does however have the best guarantee of democracy that can exist, the desire of the peole themselves. The UK has had a non legally enforced democracy of sorts since 1215. It is imbedded in the culture. It has checks and balances that are rather stronger in practice than those of the USA, for example. The courts and judiciary are independent of the politics. The executive (it is a monarchy remember) is also independent of the legislature to a degree that does not occur in republics. There is the risk of a rogue monarch, but that is less likely that a one party oligarchy arising in the USA, and it would be resolved quickly by popular action.

Democracy is probably strongest in the UK (but may be equalled in Switzerland and Scandinavia)

I feel that Switzerland is the greatest example of democracy.

I don't believe democracy is strongest in the UK, as the majority in Commons, is elected by a minority and then gains absolute power over the UK. UK judiciary are one of the least independent (this is finally changing). The REAL executive is the PM, not the monarch, who is just a figure head. The PM is supported by a false majority in Parliament, the legisliture is NOT independent of the executive. There is no Senate, that represents the population more accurately, hence Commons always gets its way (Lords only slows things down).

No state rights, only recent Central Bank independence,

I feel that Switzerland is the greatest example of democracy.

I don't believe democracy is strongest in the UK, as the majority in Commons, is elected by a minority and then gains absolute power over the UK. UK judiciary are one of the least independent (this is finally changing). The REAL executive is the PM, not the monarch, who is just a figure head. The PM is supported by a false majority in Parliament, the legisliture is NOT independent of the executive. There is no Senate, that represents the population more accurately, hence Commons always gets its way (Lords only slows things down).

No state rights, only recent Central Bank independence,

OK, one point at a time.

The majority in the commons is normally elected by a minority, but by the largest minority. In states which have PR systems the balance of power nearly always rests with a small minority group, which distorts the democratic principle even further.

The judiciary are not appointed by the executive branch, unlike other systems. They are independent of the electoral system. I can accept that you may not find this democratic, but democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the judiciary. The separation of the two is one of the strengths of the system in the UK

The UK executive is the monarch. That is fact, not opinion. However the actions of the executive are guided by the PM and the cabinet. This system prevents excessive abuse of power, it may be less democratic, but it is certainly part of an efficient system of checks and balances. There is, in fact a complete seperation between the executive and the legislature. If this applies in practice is another question.

Why should a senate represent the people more accurately than the house of represenatives. The house of Lords is not intended to be a representative body, it is a consultative body, made up of experienced politicians and the judiciary in the most part. (There is some remnant of an older feudal system, but this is insignificant.) The role is to advise the amateurs and newbies in the legislature as to what can work, what is acceptable etc. The system works very well, and yes the commons, a democratically elected body, does get its way, but in a way that will work in practice.

It is not ideal, but it is about as good as exists in practice anywhere. Switzerland has a different model, and a different, more divided culture. The Canton system works there due geography and their historical culture. It is probably more democratic, but the UK system has evolved over 900+ years into a system that works.

OK, one point at a time.

The majority in the commons is normally elected by a minority, but by the largest minority. In states which have PR systems the balance of power nearly always rests with a small minority group, which distorts the democratic principle even further.

The judiciary are not appointed by the executive branch, unlike other systems. They are independent of the electoral system. I can accept that you may not find this democratic, but democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the judiciary. The separation of the two is one of the strengths of the system in the UK

The UK executive is the monarch. That is fact, not opinion. However the actions of the executive are guided by the PM and the cabinet. This system prevents excessive abuse of power, it may be less democratic, but it is certainly part of an efficient system of checks and balances. There is, in fact a complete seperation between the executive and the legislature. If this applies in practice is another question.

Why should a senate represent the people more accurately than the house of represenatives. The house of Lords is not intended to be a representative body, it is a consultative body, made up of experienced politicians and the judiciary in the most part. (There is some remnant of an older feudal system, but this is insignificant.) The role is to advise the amateurs and newbies in the legislature as to what can work, what is acceptable etc. The system works very well, and yes the commons, a democratically elected body, does get its way, but in a way that will work in practice.

It is not ideal, but it is about as good as exists in practice anywhere. Switzerland has a different model, and a different, more divided culture. The Canton system works there due geography and their historical culture. It is probably more democratic, but the UK system has evolved over 900+ years into a system that works.

NS just ate my post, I'll do it again quickly.

1) A minority with the balance of power can only act if it has the support of a major party. Minorities put a greater range of views into legislation. Minor parties offer a check on the largest minority, if given the balance of power. Under PR, a majority of parliament, means a majority in the wider community, not just the largest minority, which is far more democratic.

2) Law lords and all that, show parliament is directly tied to legal system. Parliament technically has the power to change judicial findings. But as I said things are changing in this regard. Also it is uncommon for executives to appoint judges.

3) I was talking in practice. Your right, in THEORY, the monarch has executive power.

4) The senate represents more accurately because it uses PR. It has historically proven that the ruling party, doesn't have national support for some legislation. Most things the minor party (democrats) have blocked has reflected national divisions.

What do you think of preferences, if not proportional representation?

I like the preferential voting idea (this isn't the first time I've heard of it), but I think the proportional representation idea should only be used in the senate. The current way works well for the House.

NS just ate my post, I'll do it again quickly.

1) A minority with the balance of power can only act if it has the support of a major party. Minorities put a greater range of views into legislation. Minor parties offer a check on the largest minority, if given the balance of power. Under PR, a majority of parliament, means a majority in the wider community, not just the largest minority, which is far more democratic.
Turn this on its head. The major party can only act if it has the support of the minority. That is the part I have problems with. It is a situation we have here in Brazil with a clearly dominant party being held to ransom by smaler factions. (For me, personally it is good, as I oppose the currently dominant party, but in political terms it is a nightmare.)

2) Law lords and all that, show parliament is directly tied to legal system. Parliament technically has the power to change judicial findings. But as I said things are changing in this regard. Also it is uncommon for executives to appoint judges.
And the judiciary has the power to declare laws illegal. It has to bew that way. Otherwise one branch dominates. As to the executive appointing the judiciary, it happens in SCOTUS, and elsewhere. It is not that rare.

4) The senate represents more accurately because it uses PR. It has historically proven that the ruling party, doesn't have national support for some legislation. Most things the minor party (democrats) have blocked has reflected national divisions.
How does PR do anything about the lack of national support for a single issue? The only way of including this would be direct democracy (a system I actually prefer, but is never likely to be implemented). If they are the minor party, why do they have the power to block. My view of the Lords in the UK is of a consultative body, that wise old man that you ask when you need advice. The predecessor in the job. etc. The senate simply does not fulfill this role.

What do you think of preferences, if not proportional representation?
Explain what you mean by preferences. If you mean a single transferable vote, then I am opposed. You vote for who you want. If that person does not get enough support, tough. Your vote was cast and it did not win. Transferring this to someone else if your guy loses is like betting on a tennis tournament at the start and transferring the bet to whoever wins the match, until you get to a final. No advantage in the end, and lots more scope for abuse. Your first choice candidate did not win, so that does not mean that your second or third choice has a majority mandate. (not very clear I know)

we use PR for the local assembly elections

means that im able to complain to Sinn Fein for things theyve done, despite disagreeing with them on everything, because through PR they have one of my representatives

Turn this on its head. The major party can only act if it has the support of the minority. That is the part I have problems with. It is a situation we have here in Brazil with a clearly dominant party being held to ransom by smaler factions. (For me, personally it is good, as I oppose the currently dominant party, but in political terms it is a nightmare.)


And the judiciary has the power to declare laws illegal. It has to bew that way. Otherwise one branch dominates. As to the executive appointing the judiciary, it happens in SCOTUS, and elsewhere. It is not that rare.


How does PR do anything about the lack of national support for a single issue? The only way of including this would be direct democracy (a system I actually prefer, but is never likely to be implemented). If they are the minor party, why do they have the power to block. My view of the Lords in the UK is of a consultative body, that wise old man that you ask when you need advice. The predecessor in the job. etc. The senate simply does not fulfill this role.


Explain what you mean by preferences. If you mean a single transferable vote, then I am opposed. You vote for who you want. If that person does not get enough support, tough. Your vote was cast and it did not win. Transferring this to someone else if your guy loses is like betting on a tennis tournament at the start and transferring the bet to whoever wins the match, until you get to a final. No advantage in the end, and lots more scope for abuse. Your first choice candidate did not win, so that does not mean that your second or third choice has a majority mandate. (not very clear I know)

Look at Australia, two major parties, they can work together if something is that important, they are both centralists. If there are that many minor parties in Brazil, then the major party can choose any one to ally with. It seems to me that the major party still holds the bulk of the power.

I too like direct democracy. People vote for parties that represent them, people with conservative economics, vote for economically conservative parties. Minor parties can only block legislation if the opposition also opposes it. This says to me that a minor party with socialist economics, can only lead to a socialist economic agenda if a major party has a socialist economic agenda. Lords is a wise old man, then I'm sure the old man must fill ignored. When the Senate has advice, it makes the government listen. The Australian senate runs independent committees full of specialists to do Australia's wise old manning.

Yes I mean STV. Have you seen my previous example of LibDems, Labour and Tory. Same for Australia's National and Liberal Conservatives, or America's Nader and Kerry? Are you saying a non-transferable vote is fair under these circumstances?

i think the whole practice of *politcal parties* is flawed in itself. political parties rarely act in line with their manifesto, or their election pledges and only serve their own agenda's instead of the people's. this is obvious by statistic's governments come out with (they usually just change the statistical method to get the result they want, or fake intelligence etc).