NationStates Jolt Archive

Despite being a high and mighty western democracy, it may well not have free and fair elections. Britain is going to be the first western democracy to have investigations into the fairness of its elections by an external body. :eek:

... oh... and I still haven't recieved my polling card. Had to figure out where my local polling station was myself.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/localgovernment/story/0,,2028631,00.html

All I can say is good.

These recent election "irregularity" shenanigans here in Scotland are but icing on the cake.

No country has free and fair elections. Look at the USA for example, where votes regularly go missing and you don't even need a majority of the votes to get into office.

The answer to that question is a resounding 'no'. I don't consider our country much of a democracy at all. Our lower house of Parliament, the Commons, is elected by an electoral system that gives a party that receives one third of the vote a majority and simply doesn't represent the way people voted at all. I live on a Tory safe seat, and am so, unless I vote Tory, unrepresented and effectively disenfranchised. The Prime Minister, supported by this false mandate and majority, has huge access to power through the Royal Prerogatives. The upper house, the Lords, is either hereditary or bought into, hardly democratic.

On top of that (and I don't mean to bitch like a Daily Mail reader, but I do think it;s unfair) I object to having Scottish MPs voting in Parliament to enforce measures that both only effect England (because of measures being devolved to the Home Rule parliament) and would be rejected by 'English' MPs. Likewise, many of our Scottish Cabinet ministers aren't going to face an election in England despite most of their decisions being England-only. If we had a federal system, with a Parliament for each home nation like Canada or Australia, this wouldn't be a problem.

Add to that a different voting system for almost every elected body, postal vote fraud and now this is Scotland. It sucks.

EDIT: I apologise for the moan, too...

Now this is what I call direct action!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6622105.stm


Last Updated: Thursday, 3 May 2007, 23:45 GMT 00:45 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Polling clerk tells of 'bedlam'
Workers inspect the damaged ballot papers
Workers inspect the damaged ballot papers at the station
A polling station clerk has described the scenes of terror as a man destroyed ballot boxes with a golf club and tore up voting papers.

The incident happened at Carrick Knowe Church on Saughton Road North, Edinburgh, on Thursday evening.

A clerk told BBC Scotland that women and children were hysterical and staff retreated to another room during the attack, which lasted about 10 minutes.

A 36-year-old man is due to appear at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Friday.

The clerk, who asked to remain anonymous, recalled how the man cast his vote and left the station.

He returned with a golf club at about 2030 BST and "systematically destroyed" ballot boxes, she said.

Now I thought this might have been a secret plot by the Rev Smiler...but it turns out the guy was disgruntled.

Now this is what I call direction action!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6622105.stm



Now I thought this might have been a secret plot by the Rev Smiler...but it turns out the guy was disgruntled.
Better than spoiling your ballot.

Nothing rat-smelling about all those 'spoilt' ballot papers in Scotland. They are saying up to a 100,000?

Funny coincidence it happened as elections take place there that could elect a party who wants a referendum on Scottish Independence, and the UK is it not?

Think I'm too much of a conspiracy theorist? Maybe, but don't rule out anything, I would not put it past this government, and their shadowy gang of backers. Would you? Seriously rule out comftably and with confidence?

The elections in Scotland may have been complicated for people to understand, but still...

No, the UK is not a democracy, as Newer Burmecia has explained.

Conservative or Labour in the council election where I am.

Oooh yippee, I feel the choice of free democracy and choice jumping out of me.

Consensus politics? Nice word for no-choice, no difference duopoly.

That's not a democracy.


High time for a revolution in the UK. High time.

Now I thought this might have been a secret plot by the Rev Smiler...but it turns out the guy was disgruntled.

This guy is an ass-hat. He should have just spoiled his own ballot paper, not taken it upon himself to spoil everyone else's.

No, the UK is not a democracy, as Newer Burmecia has explained.
I'm flattered.:eek:

High time for a revolution in the UK. High time.
What kind of government/constitution would you like afterwards?

I'm flattered.:eek:

Did I make you blush?


What kind of government/constitution would you like afterwards?

All governments become corrupt eventually.

Communes, it's more direct, and easier to keep wannabe dictators in check.

Better than being ruled by someone hundreds, if not thousands of miles away.

Better than spoiling your ballot.

Another reason to go to to e-voting /Rev Smiler

This country is turning to shit.

snipped the wonderful post

*claps profusely*

I think that was perfectly said, it sums up a great many of my concerns with the present system and the complete reliance on convention.

I think the last straw for me was when I read the Electoral Commission’s (who are doing a very good job in a very bad system in my view) documents recently and found that our contingency in the event of a draw is to pick the winner out of a hat for one extra vote.

We can micromanage whether or not initials are allowed in nomination papers but we’re seemingly incapable of recognising how utterly horrible the overall system is.

I think I shall stop now to prevent this rant continuing! :D

Come! Let Us March On Parliament!

Our country is not a democracy!

Nothing rat-smelling about all those 'spoilt' ballot papers in Scotland. They are saying up to a 100,000?

Funny coincidence it happened as elections take place there that could elect a party who wants a referendum on Scottish Independence, and the UK is it not?

Think I'm too much of a conspiracy theorist? Maybe, but don't rule out anything, I would not put it past this government, and their shadowy gang of backers. Would you? Seriously rule out comftably and with confidence?

The elections in Scotland may have been complicated for people to understand, but still...
.

I can see why people may think this, but the SNP require a massive majority beofre they can even suggest a referendum on independence. and that wasn't really going to happen.

Its as simple as the electorate didn't understand what they needed to do. Most are elderly and instinct is to cross one box and fold then post.

In this election they had one sheet of paper to put 2 crosses on and another to number. so lack of information prior to the vote didn't help.

I worked yesterday as an information officer making sure people were sure of the system before they went into the polling station. they were clueless and the numbers went against the grain.

What should've happened was that the local elections and scottish parliament elections were held on different days. costly - but perhaps would've been more easily understood.

Didn't Rosseau say in democracy we're free for one day and then in chains or something. should look up before trying to quote. lazy

I think the main threat we have to any sense of democracy is something Newer Burmecia touched on - and that's our first-past-the-post electoral regions. It means all three main parties can scoop close to 30% of the popular vote and yet labour can score a huge majority in seats. It's an outdated system and these days it only serves to be exploited and prevent other parties from gaining any seats at all in parliament.

If we switched to a system where seats are awarded in proportion to who votes for who, then we'd actually have a system where all votes count and where more than the main three parties regularly sit in the commons.

Ironically, I think the House of Lords is the best thing this country has with regards to democracy - and if anyone wonders why, my reasons are probably similar to why the US founding father's originally created the Senate as an unelected body.

With regards to things like the recent gambling laws, privacy laws, and constitutional changes, it seems like the Lords can sometimes be more relied upon to represent popular opinion and legislative fairness than the opportunistic power-hungry populists and corrupt businessmen that fill the commons these days.

I guess that's ultimately because I feel that while democracy is great for preventing the rise of tyrants and unpopular leaders - let's face it, you don't want people and their herd mentality running the country.

But I'm straying off topic now, but there we go. I don't believe the house of lords in its current form is bad for this country's democracy. If anything, it's an important check, and Labour's recent intentions to ensure the lords is also filled with more politicians and businessmen concerns me.

Edit: The first couple of paragraphs of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Senate#Constitutional_creation should help give an overview of my position on the lords, for anyone who wasn't sure what I was talking about.

I don't know a lot about British politics, but do they have an electoral college or something like that?

It really irritates me when people start harking on about how stuff is undemocratic in the UK...

...because we're a bloody monarchy! Get rid of the Queen, then its democracy.

...because we're a bloody monarchy! Get rid of the Queen, then its democracy.

Are you just being a literalist for the sake of humour, or do you actually believe the queen interferes in any way with the few democratic processes we have?

Are you just being a literalist for the sake of humour, or do you actually believe the queen interferes in any way with the few democratic processes we have?

Wel...sort of both :p

The Monarchy has a hell of a lot of constitutional power. Wouldn't it be best just to do away with it?

Despite being a high and mighty western democracy, it may well not have free and fair elections. Britain is going to be the first western democracy to have investigations into the fairness of its elections by an external body. :eek:

... oh... and I still haven't recieved my polling card. Had to figure out where my local polling station was myself.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/localgovernment/story/0,,2028631,00.html

What did you want? a lift there?

The Monarchy has a hell of a lot of constitutional power. Wouldn't it be best just to do away with it?

That is quite true I suppose, and I think it's the main downside worth considering. But I'm also pretty sure that any remaining powers of her are symbolic. Like, if she used her powers and refused to sign an act of parliament, she'd be gone pretty quickly. In this sense, I think it's more of a curiosity rather than a concern.

On the flip side, I've always considered the main advantage of having the queen as head of state is that she becomes the symbol of the state, something the prime minister then doesn't get the privilige of.

Compare with America, where the President becomes a symbol of the state. I'm sure we've all seen enough posters on here argue "you should respect him - he's the president" or "trust his judgement - he's the president". Naturally, I'd be concerned that this patriotic duty to the president influences election results, and results in people supporting the present "no matter what" as such. I'm sure this is a big factor in the current president's forever-lingering remaining 30% approval rate.

I'd much rather have patriots, civil servants and the armed forces pledging their alliegiance to someone with very little power - such as the queen. Freeing the actual leaders for any of the praise and criticism they actually deserve.

Despite being a high and mighty western democracy, it may well not have free and fair elections. Britain is going to be the first western democracy to have investigations into the fairness of its elections by an external body.

Good. This is just the sort of thing any self-respecting democracy should do every now and again - and no harm.

The Monarchy has a hell of a lot of constitutional power. Wouldn't it be best just to do away with it?
Well, maybe, but not if you're destroying the Lords as well. This country needs an appointed house or body to act as a restricting force on the commons. Democracy may be the best we've got but not if the "elected" are going to insist on voting themselves into self-sustaining authoritarian dictatorships like the past few generations of Tory/Labour governments have done.

I vote for a meritocratic second house in place of the Lords to act as the governing and legislating body, with a democratic Commons to have full powers to restrict, throw out or amend the bills suggested by its counterpart.

It's a monarchy though, isn't it?

No where is it written down that the government has to even consider your vote. The main thing is that the queen appoints the prime minister.

It's a monarchy though, isn't it?

No where is it written down that the government has to even consider your vote. The main thing is that the queen appoints the prime minister.
But the prime minister does need to be a member of the Commons. He needs to be elected to get to that point. Also, the second a motion of no confidence is passed in the commons, the current government is immediately disbanded, regardless of the will of the monarchy; this is far more likely to succeed in a house where the PM does not have support of the majority of MPs.

I say we should switch to proportional representation. But it's not going to happen because the Conservatives and Labour wouldn't allow it due to First Past The Post giving them both such high nummbers. We did an experiment in our politics class with the last election results to see what they would've been should Proportional Representation be used and the LIb Dems would have a lot more influence in England.

But the prime minister does need to be a member of the Commons. He needs to be elected to get to that point. Also, the second a motion of no confidence is passed in the commons, the current government is immediately disbanded, regardless of the will of the monarchy; this is far more likely to succeed in a house where the PM does not have support of the majority of MPs.

After a motion of no confidence, the prime minister asks the queen to dissolve parliament.

I'm not sure that she really has too, I think it's all just tradition.

Also, the prime minister could be appointed from the lords, and the queen can make someone a lord anytime she wants.

After a motion of no confidence, the prime minister asks the queen to dissolve parliament.

I'm not sure that she really has too, I think it's all just tradition.
She doesn't have to, you're right, but if she doesn't let the PM dissolve parliament then they are obliged by law to resign. One or the other must occur.

I guess you're right about the Lords though. Still, chances are if it didn't have commons support then any government nominated at the behest of a Lord would be thrown out rather quickly.

High time for a revolution in the UK. High time.

Sounds like treason to me.... Curse this free speech we have!

After a motion of no confidence, the prime minister asks the queen to dissolve parliament.

I'm not sure that she really has too, I think it's all just tradition.

Also, the prime minister could be appointed from the lords, and the queen can make someone a lord anytime she wants.

You see this is one of the problems when discussing UK politics. As we don't have a written constitution much of our constitutional process is actually better termed as traditions and conventions.

Whilst the Queen is the person who 'makes' a lord the actual appointments are done by the PM. Usually from a list drawn up by the civil service based on convention - certain positions get you a Knighthood.

The PM can also add his own names on the list (see Cash for Honours scandal).

You see this is one of the problems when discussing UK politics. As we don’t have a written constitution much of our constitutional process is actually better termed as traditions and conventions.
Yes we don’t have a written constitution, such as in the US, but we still have a constitution largely made up of written documents.

A more flexible, living, adaptable, uncodified constitution is to me far preferable than a piece of paper written in the 18th century, with people arguing over how to interpret or translate the outmoded language.

You see this is one of the problems when discussing UK politics. As we don't have a written constitution much of our constitutional process is actually better termed as traditions and conventions.

Whilst the Queen is the person who 'makes' a lord the actual appointments are done by the PM. Usually from a list drawn up by the civil service based on convention - certain positions get you a Knighthood.

The PM can also add his own names on the list (see Cash for Honours scandal).

I know. The prime minister is reallythe one that actually instructs what royal decrees are, like going to war and such, but it's just a matter of tradition. If the queen wanted to make me Duke of Gibraltar tomorrow, there is nothing actually stopping her. She just wouldn't is all.

Likewise she can still withhold royal assent to any parliamentary bill. She just doesn't because of tradition.

The answer to that question is a resounding 'no'. I don't consider our country much of a democracy at all. Our lower house of Parliament, the Commons, is elected by an electoral system that gives a party that receives one third of the vote a majority and simply doesn't represent the way people voted at all. I live on a Tory safe seat, and am so, unless I vote Tory, unrepresented and effectively disenfranchised. The Prime Minister, supported by this false mandate and majority, has huge access to power through the Royal Prerogatives. The upper house, the Lords, is either hereditary or bought into, hardly democratic.

On top of that (and I don't mean to bitch like a Daily Mail reader, but I do think it;s unfair) I object to having Scottish MPs voting in Parliament to enforce measures that both only effect England (because of measures being devolved to the Home Rule parliament) and would be rejected by 'English' MPs. Likewise, many of our Scottish Cabinet ministers aren't going to face an election in England despite most of their decisions being England-only. If we had a federal system, with a Parliament for each home nation like Canada or Australia, this wouldn't be a problem.

Add to that a different voting system for almost every elected body, postal vote fraud and now this is Scotland. It sucks.

EDIT: I apologise for the moan, too...


I fully agree. I would also like to register my distaste for only having one choice when voting yesterday; why bother putting "green", "labour" and "lib dem" candidates on my voting sheet, and then only a conservative. Hardly a decent choice I felt;)

Yes we don’t have a written constitution, such as in the US, but we still have a constitution largely made up of written documents.

A more flexible, living, adaptable, uncodified constitution is to me far preferable than a piece of paper written in the 18th century, with people arguing over how to interpret or translate the outmoded language.

The US Constitution is a flexible and adaptable document...just with better documentation and codification than does the English "Constitution". We have a mechanism for change which has been used 27 times, while maintaining the integrity of the entire document.

The US Constitution is a flexible and adaptable document...just with better documentation and codification than does the English “Constitution”. We have a mechanism for change which has been used 27 times, while maintaining the integrity of the entire document.
Why use quote marks around English Constitution? The constitution of the UK exists, it just exists over a variety of documents; it is uncodified.

“Better documentation and codification” just means the US constitution is written down in one document, as opposed to a number of documents.

I’d still maintain that an uncodified constitution seems less.... staid than a written one.

Not that the UK constitution is at all perfect.

Not that the UK constitution is at all perfect.

Of course, same for the US...although both are amongst the best available.

High time for a revolution in the UK. High time.

You're joking right?

With up to 100,000 votes in Scotland rejected, there leaves a lot to be desired.

Democracy, eh?