# UK Voting Referendum



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I know that there are a number of UK-dwellers on the board, so I was wondering if any of you have made up your minds about how to vote in the referendum on the voting system on 5th May.

As we all know, it's peculiar in that David Cameron's government is putting forward a referendum on something which it opposes, and even Nick Clegg commented that the Alternative Vote system (used by Australia) is a "miserable little compromise."

Even after looking at a website explaining how much 'fairer' my vote will become in accordance with where I live (I can't remember the link, sorry!), I can't say that I necessarily understand _all_ the consequences of changing to AV, but I'll be voting _for_ the change, because I think the conservative's characterisation of coalitions is ridiculous (for starters, though Nick Clegg is a total sell-out, I think Lib Dem involvement has hindered a few right-wing measures that the left of the country would rather not see); the first-past-the-post system is undeniably unfair; and, even if it isn't a perfect electoral system and needs to be changed again, it's a clear signal that a substantial portion of the population wants radical change in government.

For non UK-ers, I'd be interested to hear either what you think about FPTP, or AV, or even about whether or not you think your own country's electoral system is fair.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Polednice said:


> For non UK-ers, I'd be interested to hear either what you think about FPTP, or AV, or even about whether or not you think your own country's electoral system is fair.


Although I think I have some sense of the two systems, could you post a relatively simple definition or find a link that we can visit to learn about them?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

There's a guide here. It explains different voting systems.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

FPTP isnt democracy imo


----------



## Potiphera (Mar 24, 2011)

I don't vote!










Why are they giving £650 million, to Pakistan, when they can't even solve the problems of their own country.


----------



## gurthbruins (May 12, 2010)

I don't vote either, and never have.
Politics is a farce the way it is conducted in practice, and so are all the voting systems I've ever heard of.

Many improvements come to mind.
I liked Nevil Shute's suggestion that people can have from one to seven votes, depending on their proved merits.

It really makes no sense that the masses, who know nothing about government, should have votes which they cannot wisely use, but which are at the mercy of the demagogues who can persuade them by elementary psychological ploys and pressures to vote for them. In any case these masses have no choice in the selection of candidates, and are usually presented with a choice between equally bad alternatives.

Looking at it from another POV, I think a _fair_ idea would be if everyone got a decimal number of votes in direct proportion to the amount of income tax he paid. In that case I would get 0.000 votes, which would suit me just fine.


----------



## Potiphera (Mar 24, 2011)

gurthbruins, 

That's is very valuable insight, and there is a great deal of truth in what you say. 
Here in the UK, people are so determinedly apolitical that they really couldn't care what the politicians do. 
It is changing a little bit under the pressure of the wars and the economy, but very few have woken up and starting to realize how profoundly disordered these politicians are.
That psychological point is very accurate, and it is known for instance that if you keep grinning at the people , like the previous incumbent did, you can perpetrate the most appalling crimes. As Shakespeare in his play, had Richard III say, ' I can smile and murder when I smile.' 
But then your point comes in, if the population is so infantile that they want to be taken in by such stratagems. The intelligent person then finds they are in effect disenfranchised, because they can't make their vioce heard.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

So, the first referendum I've done in my lifetime and what are the choices? They are between two flawed voting systems! Not whether we should remain in the EU or not, not whether we should pull out of the Middle east or not. The public can't be trusted with making important decisions like that!

I think I'll be voting for AV just to relieve the monotony of our current system. My standard of living will not change as a consequence.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

I would have preferred it if we'd gone immediately to a proper PR system with 'Abstain' as one of the choices (it still could be, but the politicians are scared witless about the possibility of officially abstaining voters getting a voice). Until (if) we get PR, AV will have to do. Presumably, one only votes for as many candidates as one wishes and doesn't HAVE to put a preference number beside every name (for example, I would refuse to give the National Front, British National Party or any other fascist organisation a single vote, no matter how far down the list of preferences).

FPTP is NOT democratic (it's not so dissimilar to the American 'college system', which is equally undemocratic, as the presidential election in 2000 amply showed) - it allows people who have less than 50% of the votes to still win a seat in parliament if the remainder of the votes were spread in a certain way.


----------



## gurthbruins (May 12, 2010)

Potiphera said:


> gurthbruins,
> 
> That's is very valuable insight, and there is a great deal of truth in what you say.
> Here in the UK, people are so determinedly apolitical that they really couldn't care what the politicians do.
> ...


You are right. I suppose in practice the people get what they deserve. I think the success of government depends on the quality and suitability of the governor, by whatever means chosen. If there are no suitable people around to do the job, what can you do?

I think politics is the rightful field of Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn, Sagittarius and Scorpio, and that others can safely forget all about it (including me). Some examples:

*Pisces:* Gorbachev, de Klerk, Harold Wilson.
*Aquarius:* Lincoln, FD Roosevelt.
*Capricorn:* Adenauer, Nixon, Mao, Gladstone.
*Sagittarius:* Franco, Stalin, Churchill, Disraeli.
*Scorpio:* De Gaulle, Nehru, Gandhi (Mercury, Venus and Mars in Scorpio), Indira Gandhi, JF Kennedy (born one day after her!)


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Candidates for office should be locked in a room until one survivor remains.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

In Holland the lower House ('Tweede Kamer' / 2nd Chamber) is elected directly, the senate ('Eerste Kamer' / 1st Chamber) is elected indirectly by means of the delegates who are chosen for the provincial departments. Today a Social Democrat delegate from the province of Limburg said he will vote _blanco_, because he doesn't agree with the government's measure to put a ban on slaughtering animals without narcosis (as it is done out of religious principles by Muslims & Jews). The delegate happens to be of Turkish descent. His party however is very much in favour (out of 'green' principles) of the measure. In the end this could influence the outcome of the senate elections in that sense, that the present centre-rightist coalition will get the majority of seats exactly because of this blank being fired.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I'll be voting against. Sorry, guys. 

I don't find the arguments for AV or proportional representation very convincing. I think the one aim should be that the government tend to reflect public opinion, while still being sensible. Whether the number of MPs precisely reflects the number of votes seems fairly irrelevant to me, except to the extent that it affects actual laws passed, actual decisions made, etc. Is there evidence that countries with AV have governments that are more likely to reflect public opinion, while still being sensible? I don't think so myself, although others may disagree. Is there evidence that countries with AV have less stable governments? _Some_ evidence, yes, even though it's not universally true. Call me pragmatic, but I don't think the risk is necessary.

That being said, I don't come to this forum to argue about politics. I'm not meaning to get into an fight with people who disagree.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I have also become disillusioned with democracy of late:


Anyone can vote, irrespective of merits. This means:
People decide on issues of which they have little to no knowledge
Public opinion changes too quickly for any effective long-term governance
Politicians are elected based on their marketing and persuasive skills rather than any governance qualities or specific expertise in the areas of decision.
I feel that the above reasons have led to the inevitable increase in deficits, CO2 emissions, etc... due to the near impossibility of reaching political concensi on these topics.
Unfortunately there currently exists no other form of government that is acceptable.



> It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.


 - Churchill


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Webernite said:


> I'll be voting against. Sorry, guys.
> 
> I don't find the arguments for AV or proportional representation very convincing. I think the one aim should be that the government tend to reflect public opinion, while still being sensible. Whether the number of MPs precisely reflects the number of votes seems fairly irrelevant to me, except to the extent that it affects actual laws passed, actual decisions made, etc. Is there evidence that countries with AV have governments that are more likely to reflect public opinion, while still being sensible? I don't think so myself, although others may disagree. Is there evidence that countries with AV have less stable governments? _Some_ evidence, yes, even though it's not universally true. Call me pragmatic, but I don't think the risk is necessary.
> 
> That being said, I don't come to this forum to argue about politics. I'm not meaning to get into an fight with people who disagree.


I can understand your reservations, but the main problem I have with this is that I don't think FPTP is reasonably representative of the people's political leanings. It engenders a two-party system, with those two parties being so centrist as to be indistinguishable in many respects, and affords MPs of those two parties to be elected with as little as 29% of the public vote (to cite one example).


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Webernite said:


> I'll be voting against. Sorry, guys.
> 
> I don't find the arguments for AV or proportional representation very convincing. I think the one aim should be that the government tend to reflect public opinion, while still being sensible. Whether the number of MPs precisely reflects the number of votes seems fairly irrelevant to me, except to the extent that it affects actual laws passed, actual decisions made, etc. Is there evidence that countries with AV have governments that are more likely to reflect public opinion, while still being sensible? I don't think so myself, although others may disagree. Is there evidence that countries with AV have less stable governments? _Some_ evidence, yes - even though it's not universally true. Call me pragmatic, but I don't think the risk is necessary.
> 
> That being said, I don't come to this forum to argue about politics. I'm not meaning to get into an fight with people who disagree.


Take these examples:
In 2010 the Lib Dems gained the support of 23% of the British people. Their voting power in the Commons amounted to only 8.8%. It could be argued therefore that they are underrepresented by a factor of 3.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2011)

Delicious Manager said:


> FPTP is NOT democratic (it's not so dissimilar to the American 'college system', which is equally undemocratic, as the presidential election in 2000 amply showed) - it allows people who have less than 50% of the votes to still win a seat in parliament if the remainder of the votes were spread in a certain way.


 Absolutely right. The American founding fathers were actually quite disdainful of pure democracy, which they viewed as mob rule. The Democratic Party in the U.S. started out with the name Democratic-Republicans in the days of Thomas Jefferson, and the name was more given to them than originally chosen - it was meant as an insult by the Federalists. Originally it was even less democratic, as I have said elsewhere. Senators only started to be directly elected by the citizens of the states in the last century - prior to that, state legislators came together to elect senators, so state government actually had more power than it does now. The move to make them directly elected by the voting populace of the states was more a move to strip more powers from state governments and centralize more power in the federal government. The electoral college was also put into place as a failsafe. It wasn't to strip power from the people, but rather to protect the people from potential fringe groups gaining power. The electoral college would have the final say. Of course, when originally written, it was not anticipated that the two party system would emerge, as it has today. Originally, as well, you didn't have two candidates on a ticket for Pres. and VP. The top two vote getters would win Pres. and VP, respectively. Thus, you had John Adams as President and Thomas Jefferson as VP, even though the two were rivals.

I have mixed emotions about putting requirements on voting. In some ways, it makes sense to only enfranchise those who are contributing. In the last place I lived, I was annoyed at every vote to raise property taxes for some new program. As a homeowner, I had to pay property taxes. But there were numerous people who lived in apartments and did not pay property taxes who would always vote to raise them. Was that fair? But that is how the whole electoral system is. You have so much of the populace that pays little or nothing in income tax, and yet will vote for politicians who promise to raise taxes on others to give new programs to those who don't pay. This was something that Tocqueville warned of when he made his survey of the American political system.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I can understand your reservations, but the main problem I have with this is that I don't think FPTP is reasonably representative of the people's political leanings. It engenders a two-party system, with those two parties being so centrist as to be indistinguishable in many respects, and affords MPs of those two parties to be elected with as little as 29% of the public vote (to cite one example).


Well, that is true of the situation in Britain over the last fifteen years or so, but it hasn't always been the case, even though we have always had FPTP. FPTP is not the source of the problem, in my opinion.

Besides, I don't deny that FPTP is flawed, but I think all electoral systems are pretty badly flawed in one way or another. To me, the chances of AV improving things seem lower than the chances of it messing things up further, and causing confusion.



emiellucifuge said:


> Take these examples:
> In 2010 the Lib Dems gained the support of 23% of the British people. Their voting power in the Commons amounted to only 8.8%. It could be argued therefore that they are underrepresented by a factor of 3.


I'm fully aware of the statistical imbalances that FPTP creates. But my whole point is that most of these statistics are meaningless so far as _practical outcomes_ are concerned. 8.8% voting power in the Commons is _completely different _ from 8.8% influence on government policy. It's artificial to equate political power with pure voting power in the Commons. There are countless other factors at play. The LibDems would probably be more influential with 8.8% voting power and a fiery leader than with 15% voting power and a weak one; but this sort of thing is completely overlooked in the arguments for proportional representation and AV.

When people quote statistics such as yours, they're also overlooking the fact that in Britain we vote for an MP and _not_ for a political party.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Any way, as I said, I don't really want to get into a debate. It's stressful and time-consuming, and causes bad feelings between me and other members of the forum, which is something I don't like. If you respond to my post, I'll read what you say, but I probably won't be posting in this thread again. 

:tiphat:


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Im aware that you vote for an MP and not a party, yet this is not exactly always the case in practise. A very large majority of votes, the MPs will vote along party guidelines and are whipped. So even if you vote for the MP and hope to trust his judgement, more often than not he will subscribe to his party's ideology and vote with party.

Even further, currently an MP can represent an entire constituency in parliament whereas only a minority of residents would support him.

So.. perhaps voting for MPs rather than voting for a party is no longer the correct way to proceed in a democracy. Particularly as most decisions affect the entire country. Its time to open up parliament to a greater range of ideologies.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Webernite said:


> Whether the number of MPs precisely reflects the number of votes seems fairly irrelevant to me.


Umm, isn't that what 'democracy' is supposed to be all about?

So you're happy with a system where a party can 'win' an election and take power even though another party has actually had more votes (which has happened more than once in recent decades)?


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> Umm, isn't that what 'democracy' is supposed to be all about?
> 
> So you're happy with a system where a party can 'win' an election and take power even though another party has actually had more votes (which has happened more than once in recent decades)?


I know I said I wasn't going to post here any more, but you seem so shocked at me that I feel I should explain myself. Yes, I am in favour of democracy. But as a number of people have already said, democracy is problematic. Rather than simply dismissing it (as some people here have done!), I try to take a pragmatic view of what it is and what its limits are. For me, democracy refers to a system where the government reflects public opinion and concerns, while still being practical and moral. I think this has far more in common with what "democracy" has traditionally meant than any specific method of holding elections.

As I understand it, the situation you describe (a party winning without getting the most votes) is possible under AV as well as FPTP. But obviously, it can't happen under pure PR, which is what you're in favour of. Well, my first thought is that, as I said already, in Britain we vote for an MP and not for a political party. It is true that most MPs follow the party whip most of the time, but voting in the Commons is only one of many things that they do. Secondly, and more important, PR simply replaces one potential unfairness with another. It stops parties winning without getting the most votes, but it encourages the creation of coalitions which _nobody_ voted for, and in which small parties almost always wield disproportionate power.

(Now, this really is the last time I'm going to post here...)


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

By Dr. Mike: "But there were numerous people who lived in apartments and did not pay property taxes" - just to say that renters also indirectly pay property taxes. It's usually built into the rent. When property taxes go up, rental fees go up as well.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Hmmm... I'm sure I posted a criticism already in this thread.

It was along the lines of 'this referendum is a load of ********', or words to that effect, only it was more concise.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*It's like this*



Delicious Manager said:


> FPTP is NOT democratic (it's not so dissimilar to the American 'college system', which is equally undemocratic, as the presidential election in 2000 amply showed) - it allows people who have less than 50% of the votes to still win a seat in parliament if the remainder of the votes were spread in a certain way.


The country is the United _States _of America. The Electoral College throws a crumb toward the equality of the states, since all states have two US Senators. The smaller states may not have joined the Union without the crumb. As a result, my vote as a Vermonter carries a smidgen more weight in presidential elections than it would if I resided in New York.

:tiphat:


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> I would have preferred it if we'd gone immediately to a proper PR system with 'Abstain' as one of the choices (it still could be, but the politicians are scared witless about the possibility of officially abstaining voters getting a voice). Until (if) we get PR, AV will have to do. Presumably, one only votes for as many candidates as one wishes and doesn't HAVE to put a preference number beside every name (for example, I would refuse to give the National Front, British National Party or any other fascist organisation a single vote, no matter how far down the list of preferences).


Would it have to necessarily be a preference number beside *every* name? I'd presume that you might want to only rank the candidates you feel are acceptable, and leave a blank beside those you don't want to endorse at all, no? If not, you're right, this is a rather weird system.


> FPTP is NOT democratic (it's not so dissimilar to the American 'college system', which is equally undemocratic, as the presidential election in 2000 amply showed) - it allows people who have less than 50% of the votes to still win a seat in parliament if the remainder of the votes were spread in a certain way.


Like others said, America is not a straight democracy in the sense of 1 citizen = 1 vote, it is rather a federative republic. Our system gives weight to the states (semi-autonomous entities in our federation of states), because 1 citizen = 1 vote would make populous states like California and New York call all the shots and leave states like Rhode Island, Vermont, and Delaware totally irrelevant. Knowing that they wouldn't need to cater to voters in those small or sparsely populated states, and politicians being the way they are (everywhere in the world), federal investments, earmarks, and programs would skip those states and result over time in chronic under-development. When you compare the needs of much smaller European countries to the needs of a continental-sized country like ours, you gotta understand that the system may need to be different. I think that most citizens here are perfectly content with our electoral college. Yes, sometimes (very rarely) the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the electoral college but this is what our system dictates and we're fine with it.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> Would it have to necessarily be a preference number beside *every* name? I'd presume that you might want to only rank the candidates you feel are acceptable, and leave a blank beside those you don't want to endorse at all, no? If not, you're right, this is a rather weird system.


It is the case that you only have to mark a preference for parties that you deem acceptable, rather than give them all a number. This apparently creates another problem, however, should people choose to mark a preference for one party _only_ - can't remember why that's bad, someone will have to remind me


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*The Sandman Cometh*



Chi_townPhilly said:


> [...] but put me in the camp that has resolved that government has much more of a SPENDING problem than a revenue problem- by a factor of multiples.


Nearly all 'Western" governments in the world appear to have some form of the *Bush-Cheney Gang* 'problem', which boils down to "Them that has most of it wants the rest of it." The New Oligarchs have decided that representative government is an inefficient way to manage economic slavery, so it must be destroyed before a stable oligarchy can rise. It's just a matter of getting it done without a wealth-challenging anarchic interregnum.

:tiphat:


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*Hmmm...*

Where you see "New Oligarchs" plotting for the demise of representative government and arranging for the perpetuation of "Economic Slavery," I see Mr. Cloward and Mr. Piven, and Atlas, if not actually Shrugging, at least preparing to unburden his Mighty Shoulders.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that one.:tiphat:


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

You guys (Dr. Mike & Almaviva) are excellent examples of intelligent people who have been blitzed by the "details". The spin doctors hired by the oligarchs have done their job well. _Throw enough chaff in with the grain, the Big Picture will remain hidden_. Representative government is well along toward being destroyed by applied social science in the hands of those who can pay for it.

:wave:


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Hilltroll, id be fascinated by a more understandable explanation.


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You guys (Dr. Mike & Almaviva) are excellent examples of intelligent people who have been blitzed by the "details". The spin doctors hired by the oligarchs have done their job well. _Throw enough chaff in with the grain, the Big Picture will remain hidden_. Representative government is well along toward being destroyed by applied social science in the hands of those who can pay for it.
> 
> :wave:


 Yeah, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. You're going to have to give a better explanation here before I know whether or not I need to be concerned about nefarious schemes from some nebulous cabal of "oligarchs."


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*Jeezum Creepers*



DrMike said:


> Yeah, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. You're going to have to give a better explanation here before I know whether or not I need to be concerned about nefarious schemes from some nebulous cabal of "oligarchs."




Jeez, it's only 'nebulous' if you haven't been paying attention. Try doing that. I've said my piece here.

:cheers:


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Hilltroll, id be fascinated by a more understandable explanation.


_They_ used to be known as the International Military/Industrial Complex; remember _them?_

Nowadays _they_ have discovered the power of spin-doctoring via the Internet, and 'M/IC' is only a part of the program. _They_ know now that the masses are malleable to a far greater extent than was possible a few decades ago.

"Rome is burning!"

:guitar:

:tiphat:


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

By the way Dr Mike we have completely hijacked the UK referendum thread. Maybe I should make of this a thread about taxes and health care in America and move our discussion there.

Edit: OK, I did, here is the link to the new thread:

http://www.talkclassical.com/13000-taxes-health-care-america.html


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

I'll be voting for AV as I think it would make parliament more representative. I could vote for any party I like as my first choice and if that vote makes no direct difference, it is carried over to my second choice which eliminates my need to vote tactically.


----------

