NationStates Jolt Archive

DEBATE; the first past post system for electing the governement as it exist in the UK and the US causes political apathy.

as an example i live in the Christchurch, UK. the demographics of this constituency is predominatly elderly and one of the safest conservative seats in the UK. as a result it is almost a forgone conclusion that it will remain so, no matter if i vote or not. however if i lived in a constituency that had a marginal seat then my vote would be worth more as it would have a chance of affecting change. people under this system are left un represented.

eg at the last election
LABOUR; 9,562,122 votes 356 seats = 1 MP/ 26,859 votes
CONSERVATIVES; 8,772,598 votes 198 seats = 1MP/ 44,306 votes
LIB DEM; 5,981,874 votes 62 seats = 1 MP / 96, 481 votes

also 256,000 voted for the green party who didnt get 1 mp.

although this system offers a clear winner and prevents parliament from getting to many parties. it limits democracy, leaves people unrepresented, peoples votes dont matter. this in turn leads to apathy, or a call for change

Not the problem in itself. The problem is the demographics of the electorate and the facts that 1) all parties are centralist, 2) the leadership of all three parties are far from inspiring (though I do like Ming the merciless) and 3) the economics of the country at the moment undermines most radical thinking.

If the ecconomy took a bit of a dive, we would see a greater participation at the poles. The first past the post system does undermine the power of and individual vote to change the country, but it does create individually elected and therefore, theoretically, more indipendantly minded MPs than a PR system which create more parties and more need for compromise, but less spirited debate.

You suck!

Britain has too many MPs, its a joke. Complete evasion of responsability. "Hey over 300 members voted like I did so don't look at me," they say. That many people, all following the dude in power. Its a joke.

What Britain needs is no more than 5 MPs and have elections to replace them every 30 days.

Not sure about the UK but the US has low turnout because all the candidates suck.

Regardless, the first past the post system is essentially what's led to the two party (actually one party with two names) system here in the US.

Everyone with a minority opinion is shut out of the political process. Look at the voter turnout rates. The people have clearly spoken. They don't have confidence in the system as a tool to bring about political change.

It's things like that which lead me to seriously consider violent revolution as a reasonable political tool.

I agree the "first past the post" system just sucks. It leads to a two parties system, and to a party being all powerful during the mandate.

Two rounds systems (like in France) is a tiny bit better, but still has the same problems, even in a less worse form.

A fully proportional system for assemblies is much better, with a minimal votes (3% or 5%) if you want a bit more of stability.

For elections with only one candidate (like presidential elections), we need to get closer to a Condorcet vote, or at least an Instant Runoff vote.

This can be done in many ways, one that I'm thinking about is letting each candidates to write a "resign" list publically before the election: for example, if you have a communist (C), a social-democrat (S), a green (G), a moderate right (MR), a strong right (SR) and a fascist (F), you could have resign lists like:

C: G, then S, then MR, then SR
G: S, then C, then MR, then SR
S: G, then C, then MR, then SR
MR: SR, then S, then G
SR: MR
F: SR, then MR

Then, you take the candidate with the least amount of voices (say, the F), and add his voices to the first one on his list: SR. Then, you take the second one with the least amount of voices (say, the G), and report his votes, and so on. You could still do a final second round between the last two, or use this system till the end.

With electronic voting, you could even do a real Condorcet voting. I don't oppose it, as long as there is paper trail which is checked manually.

First past the post has been remarkeably effective in the Uk in producing governemtns whith suffiecitn support in the HoP to implement their policies rather than inefective coalitons as in Italy, Japan etc

Regardless, the first past the post system is essentially what's led to the two party (actually one party with two names) system here in the US.

Everyone with a minority opinion is shut out of the political process. Look at the voter turnout rates. The people have clearly spoken. They don't have confidence in the system as a tool to bring about political change.

It's things like that which lead me to seriously consider violent revolution as a reasonable political tool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law - sound familiar?

Not sure about the UK but the US has low turnout because all the candidates suck.

Well, that and the distinct lack of significant ideological differences between the Republicans and Democrats. :(

If the Good Lord had wanted us to vote, he'd have given us candidates.

I wish I knew who said that. Sounds like Twain, but I can't find it.