Scottish referendum

[Steely Glint]

How is that different to the referendum passing whether the Yes side wins by 1 vote or by 5 million?

Because my vote is counted somewhere between that 1 vote and five million, whereas the final total for the next parliament will be x Lab MPs, y Tory Mps, z Lib Dem MPs and that vote will be exactly the same no matter how I cast my vote. Even in the event of a hung parliament and an absolute dead heat my vote won't matter. I'll go down to the polling booth to fulfill some vague sense of civil responsibility (I didn't vote in the Euro elections because I'd moved since the general and hadn't got registration sorted out and felt vaguely bad about it), but it's a meaningless gesture.

I don't understand why people insist on indulging such ridiculous sophistry to defend FPTP. "oooh, it's a magic aether vote that doesn't do mean anything but it's still totally the same, you know, in spirit". Who are they trying to convince?

[Loki]

Then your problem isn't with FPTP but with representative democracy...

[Steely Glint]

I was going to do this whole thing where I defend rotten boroughs in the same terms used to defend FPTP, but at the moment I can't be bothered.

[Loki]

In a PR system, your vote matters more for the number of MPs that get elected but matters less when it comes to deciding who forms a government. Trade-offs...

[Steely Glint]

My vote doesn't matter at all when it comes to deciding who forms a government. Workington's been red for thirty years or more.

[Loki]

If you live in a country where no political party can expect to get a majority of the votes (in a PR system), then your vote won't matter at all regarding who forms the government either. That decision will be made entirely behind closed doors. All your vote does is give the party you support a slightly stronger bargaining position.

[LittleFuzzy]

Exact same? Last time I looked, in direct democracy you get to vote again and again and again. And you're voting on the issues themselves, by the way.

In FPTP you get to vote once in a while and then you're out of luck in the mean time. And you're not voting on the issues themselves, only indirectly, based on whatever the politician/party in question deems to be appropriate promises during campaigning. "All votes for anyone other than the second place are votes for the winner", the saying goes, I believe.

There is absolutely zero structural difference between "voting again and again" on direct democracy and voting "once in a while" on a representative. There is no "lost vote." It makes no difference whether you're voting on an issue or for a candidate. Nor does that saying of yours mean anything.

You aren't in the least bit puzzled, Fuzzy. You are a bright boy, and you understand this. It's not hard. You're just engaging in the apparently common practice of engaging in willful blindness towards the gaping flaws in our respective democracies because... uh... fucked if I know. I'm not an expert on how people who aren't me think.

All votes cast in the Scottish referendum were counted toward the final total, but in a FPTP the post system they're only counted up until the point a sub-region is decided, after which they are irrelevant.

BULLSHIT! You don't have a party list system in the UK. You're voting for someone for your local district. The fact that you've got a Parliamentary system whose members are expected to act "at large" does not change that.

Under the Westminster system, there is no difference whatsoever between winning a constituency by a single vote or a landslide, making all those extra votes meaningless. This is not democratic. Again, it's not about winning or losing; I could vote for the winning candidate in my constituency and my vote would be just as wasted as if I'd voted for the Standing at the Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party.

It had undemocratic elements. So does proportional representation, as Loki said. And your vote isn't wasted either way. You're free to consider it inefficiently applied, if you want, but it is absolutely impossible to parse aggregate voting counts up and say Person 1's vote for A counted and Person 2's vote for A didn't and Person 3's vote for B didn't. Which is what you're trying to do. The results of any such endeavor are completely abitrary and hence meaningless. If a person or issue gets twice the votes it needs you can maybe say that each vote counts for half rather than a full vote but you can't say 1/2 of them (much less a specific half of them) don't count.

You can, of course, explain this by saying that, when viewed from the right angle my vote actually represents the abstract concept of my MP in theory representing me to parliament and in some vague way deciding who forms the next government but is not how it works in practice and has always and only been a big pile of horseshit. You can stuff your metaphorical vote, I want a real one. Why do you think we see such comparatively low turn outs in safe seats? Because people know perfectly well that this 'you have a vote on paper, but not actually' stuff is crap.

Sure, because we all know that perception is reality right?

[Steely Glint]

If you live in a country where no political party can expect to get a majority of the votes (in a PR system), then your vote won't matter at all regarding who forms the government either. That decision will be made entirely behind closed doors. All your vote does is give the party you support a slightly stronger bargaining position.

At the moment, my vote doesn't matter at all. Whereas if I'd been living in Hampstead and Kilburn (won by 42 votes in 2010), my vote would have been disproportionately important. So I'd call that an improvement.

BULLSHIT! You don't have a party list system in the UK. You're voting for someone for your local district. The fact that you've got a Parliamentary system whose members are expected to act "at large" does not change that.

You appear to be labouring under the misconception that simply explaining how the system works is the same as justifying the system.

It had undemocratic elements. So does proportional representation, as Loki said. And your vote isn't wasted either way. You're free to consider it inefficiently applied, if you want, but it is absolutely impossible to parse aggregate voting counts up and say Person 1's vote for A counted and Person 2's vote for A didn't and Person 3's vote for B didn't. Which is what you're trying to do. The results of any such endeavor are completely abitrary and hence meaningless. If a person or issue gets twice the votes it needs you can maybe say that each vote counts for half rather than a full vote but you can't say 1/2 of them (much less a specific half of them) don't count.

Well, maybe we could try that Proportional Representation thing?

Sure, because we all know that perception is reality right?

I think the point I'm trying to make here is that it's not.

[Khendraja'aro]

Nor does that saying of yours mean anything.

Then you have never actually looked at the concept of "tactical voting". Because in the US, if you don't vote for either Republicans or Democrats you may as well not bother voting at all. Because any votes for 3rd parties will actually benefit the victor.

This is the actual absurdity of the system: You voted for Nader but would have been okay with Gore. What you got was Bush - because your vote for Nader meant that Bush effectively got a larger percentage due to your votes for Nader being for nought. If everyone who voted for Nader had voted for Gore instead he would have won. That's the absurdity of such a system: 3rd party votes will skew the system to the point of absurdity. If you want to avoid your vote being for nought (or even being detrimental) you have to engage in tactical voting.

Get your thoughts in gear. The problem exists whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

[Loki]

Um, you get even more tactical voting in a PR system. You might vote for a party just so they pass a minimum threshold (ask Minx). You may vote for a party to improve their bargaining position with your favored party (because you like some of the former's fringe policies). You may still vote for the second biggest party (even if it's not your party) just to deny the largest party a chance to finish first.

At the moment, my vote doesn't matter at all. Whereas if I'd been living in Hampstead and Kilburn (won by 42 votes in 2010), my vote would have been disproportionately important. So I'd call that an improvement.

Again, using that logic, your vote doesn't matter even in a direct democracy as long as the voting isn't close.

[Khendraja'aro]

Um, you get even more tactical voting in a PR system. You might vote for a party just so they pass a minimum threshold (ask Minx). You may vote for a party to improve their bargaining position with your favored party (because you like some of the former's fringe policies). You may still vote for the second biggest party (even if it's not your party) just to deny the largest party a chance to finish first.

Well, that's more choices than: "Vote for one or the other, because otherwise it matters jack."

Your comparison is interesting because in all the cases you just enumerated, your vote actually does something you want.

In the US system? Your vote doesn't matter or counts for the opposite party.

[LittleFuzzy]

You appear to be labouring under the misconception that simply explaining how the system works is the same as justifying the system.

If you weren't so intent on acting like GGT and taking perception over reality, explaining how the system works might mean something. You haven't provided jack which would justify your position either, you just reiterate the same empty hyperbolic slogan morons created to "justify" their dislike of a system they don't understand.

Well, maybe we could try that Proportional Representation thing?

Go ahead. But your vote still "won't count" the way you want it to. It just "won't count" in a less familiar format.

Then you have never actually looked at the concept of "tactical voting".

I am. But we're talking about Steely's vote for something "not counting." Tactical voting is all about voting against someone/something which is actually a rather different animal.

This is the actual absurdity of the system: You voted for Nader but would have been okay with Gore. What you got was Bush - because your vote for Nader meant that Bush effectively got a larger percentage due to your votes for Nader being for nought. If everyone who voted for Nader had voted for Gore instead he would have won. That's the absurdity of such a system: 3rd party votes will skew the system to the point of absurdity. If you want to avoid your vote being for nought (or even being detrimental) you have to engage in tactical voting.

That one's a myth. If everyone in Florida voted tactically, Bush would probably have won by a larger margin, more votes that would have gone Republican went to third parties than votes for Nader which would have gone to the Dems. They were just spread across more small parties. Same holds true nationally. And a large proportion of those votes are protest-votes in the first place. If they had the impact you suggest, they'd definitely have counted. More so than was perhaps desired. Either way, it's meaningless. It has no contribution to make toward the point Steely and I are arguing.

[Steely Glint]

Again, using that logic, your vote doesn't matter even in a direct democracy as long as the voting isn't close.

No, because my vote is still used to decide whether or not the vote is close. You seem to think my objection is being part of a large mass of voters whose voice can swamp mine, but it isn't that at all. Rather, it's the binary nature of he results coming out of the constituency does not accurately reflect the collective opinion of that large mass that I have a problem with; it disproportionately values votes in some parts of the country while de facto defranchising voters in others. I'm aware of the drawbacks of the PR system, but the pale in comparison to that basic truth.

[Khendraja'aro]

I am. But we're talking about Steely's vote for something "not counting." Tactical voting is all about voting against someone/something which is actually a rather different animal.

You're missing the point, again. The corrolary, which is the point I'm trying to make and which you're repeatedly missing, is the fact that if you don't engage in tactical voting your vote may count for nothing. It's not a "rather different animal". It's a consequence of certain votes having no impact. Cause and effect, my dear.

That one's a myth.

The point is that it is possible. And unless you're telling me that we can actually examine alternate universes your argument is a myth as well.

[earthJoker]

Again, using that logic, your vote doesn't matter even in a direct democracy as long as the voting isn't close.

Referendums are usually counted over the whole country at once*. Means that it is never possible that the case with more votes loses. At least in the Bush vs. Gore case (IIRC) Gore got more votes over all. One of the biggest drawbacks of FPTP is that it matters where you live.
And again, if people want to have a say, who forms a government, than they should vote for the government directly, like in the US or in France. You don't need FPTP for that.

And it's not like the Brits have an actual say on who forms the government, just which party. At least I can't remember Gordon Brown winning a general election for PM.

* For a constitutional change in Switzerland the majority of votes and the majority of cantons is needed.

[Steely Glint]

If you weren't so intent on acting like GGT and taking perception over reality, explaining how the system works might mean something. You haven't provided jack which would justify your position either, you just reiterate the same empty hyperbolic slogan morons created to "justify" their dislike of a system they don't understand.

I have no idea how to parse this waffle as anything other than "NO SHUT UP YOUR WRONG" and, frankly, little interest in trying.

Go ahead. But your vote still "won't count" the way you want it to. It just "won't count" in a less familiar format.

So glad you took the time to contribute you keen insights.

[RandBlade]

No you're wrong your vote counts no matter what.

Furthermore we don't elect party slates. We elect individuals who represent not just their own party but also their local area. Quite frankly it's hard enough to get most in the Westminster circle to realise the country outside of the M25 exists without removing our local links.

I am glad to have a local MP who represents my constituency of Warrington South so when issues affect Warrington he can speak up and ensure our interests aren't neglected.

Going to regions doesn't help because then centres of the region tale prominence. We are sandwiched between Liverpool and Manchester so who would represent us then? The national media cares about London over all, are regional media care about Liverpool and Manchester.

To take a current issue that has no national prominence but is significantly important for us is a local transport issue. The Mersey River can be crossed by toll tunnels in Liverpool or a free bridge from Runcorn to Widnes. The first road crossing is through our very congested town centre. A new Runcorn Widnes toll bridge is being funded by the government and when it opens the currently free bridge will become a toll one too. This will make Warrington town centre which is already congested the first free crossing over the Mersey. This is going to make our gridlock worse and my MP has been fighting to ensure our road network isn't neglected due to the actions of the national government supporting the wider region.

I read a report recently that 48% of Labour Party members live in London. 48% of the country don't, and thankfully then of MP's don't. Removing the local link removes representation and encourages party hacks and slates. No thanks.

[earthJoker]

Well, local issues aren't decided in Bern anyway, that's why we don't have that problem in the first place.

[Khendraja'aro]

No you're wrong your vote counts no matter what.

Furthermore we don't elect party slates. We elect individuals who represent not just their own party but also their local area. Quite frankly it's hard enough to get most in the Westminster circle to realise the country outside of the M25 exists without removing our local links.

I am glad to have a local MP who represents my constituency of Warrington South so when issues affect Warrington he can speak up and ensure our interests aren't neglected.

Going to regions doesn't help because then centres of the region tale prominence. We are sandwiched between Liverpool and Manchester so who would represent us then? The national media cares about London over all, are regional media care about Liverpool and Manchester.

To take a current issue that has no national prominence but is significantly important for us is a local transport issue. The Mersey River can be crossed by toll tunnels in Liverpool or a free bridge from Runcorn to Widnes. The first road crossing is through our very congested town centre. A new Runcorn Widnes toll bridge is being funded by the government and when it opens the currently free bridge will become a toll one too. This will make Warrington town centre which is already congested the first free crossing over the Mersey. This is going to make our gridlock worse and my MP has been fighting to ensure our road network isn't neglected due to the actions of the national government supporting the wider region.

I read a report recently that 48% of Labour Party members live in London. 48% of the country don't, and thankfully then of MP's don't. Removing the local link removes representation and encourages party hacks and slates. No thanks.

I'm not sure what local matters have to do with an issue on a national level?

[RandBlade]

Because the national government takes investment and other decisions that have a disproportionate local affect. Eg the bridge I mentioned. That is a nationally funded infrastructure decision that is made nationally and affects us.

Other issues like transport policies in general like fuel taxes etc have different affects in different areas. I once saw Labour London MP Diane Abbott argue for much higher fuel duties despite the fact our duty is already astronomical as people should be using Public Transport like the Underground. Yes very clever everyone in the whole country has the London Underground . Try getting into the rest of the country and it's a very different situation and cars are far more essential.

The last thing this country needs is even more disproportionate Londoners making up Parliament.

Under our system every area has both the MOST POPULAR individual/party as people have voted AND a local representative. Steely is 100% wrong that the popular vote is irrelevant. If his local neighbours want to elect a monkey in a red rosette that is their democratic choice.

Unless Parliament is going to stop making decisions nationally that affect people differently in different areas we need to keep a local link.

[earthJoker]

In our system usually at least two levels are participating in every major infrastructure project. For example the new Zürich city link was founded 2/3 by the federal government and 1/3 by the canton. And even though the city didn't found anything they still had a say on the project as it was the land of the city the project was built on/under.

The cantons and communes affected by project will aways be part of the planning, but not the PM of the cantons. The is no link to the region in our national parliament that goes further than the canton. That means all 34 PMs from the canton of Zürich could theoretically come from the same village.

Put that wont ever happen, because that would mean that all parties would put candidates from the same village on their lists.

[Khendraja'aro]

Because the national government takes investment and other decisions that have a disproportionate local affect. Eg the bridge I mentioned. That is a nationally funded infrastructure decision that is made nationally and affects us.

Wait, London suddenly decides to build a bridge somewhere without any participation of the local government at all?

Weird system you have over there - sounds like a Python sketch:

"I'm here to deliver the bridge you ordered!" - "Well, I don't know anything about that but since you're here, just put it in the garden. There should be some space between the drilling platform and the submarine!"

[earthJoker]

But Khen, when you think about it, the first part of tHGttG suddenly makes a lot more sense.

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, he was a Brit, after all.

But you're right, makes a whole lot more sense now that it's based on an actual political system. And not merely a parody as I previously thought.

So, that's where they got their humor from - they don't have to think about it, they're actually living it!

In my eyes, that makes tHGttG a documentary.

[earthJoker]

It did take you so long to find that out? Brits aren't especially funny, just especially weird.

[RandBlade]

Wait, London suddenly decides to build a bridge somewhere without any participation of the local government at all?

Weird system you have over there - sounds like a Python sketch:

"I'm here to deliver the bridge you ordered!" - "Well, I don't know anything about that but since you're here, just put it in the garden. There should be some space between the drilling platform and the submarine!"

Did you fail to read the explanation I wrote? We're not the ones getting the bridge, our neighbours are. But that will divert traffic that wants to avoid tolls through our already congested city centre.

As road funding is centrally allocated our local MP has been campaigning to sort out our roads too to deal with the congestion rather than just be forgotten about.

But that is very specific. As I said in general all sorts of national policy areas affect different locales differently. Immigration, many taxes, education, health care, transport, pensions and much more have different views in different areas. The whole of the UK is not an identikit of London but these are national policy areas for England.

[earthJoker]

My neighbor has also different opinions than I have, despite the fact that we live in the (almost) same place.

[RandBlade]

And that's why you and your neighbour should each get a vote in selecting your local representative to Parliament. And your local representative then has a duty to represent both you and your neighbour. Its how it works here.

Steely has a vote as do his neighbours. If his neighbours choose a monkey in a red rosette that's their choice.

[earthJoker]

And that's why you and your neighbour should each get a vote in selecting your local representative to Parliament. And your local representative then has a duty to represent both you and your neighbour. Its how it works here.

Steely has a vote as do his neighbours. If his neighbours choose a monkey in a red rosette that's their choice.

My neighbour was MP of the SVP, it is close to impossible to represent both of us as a single person. But I voted for people of various towns all over the canton that now represent me much better than any candidate of my own town could have.

[Khendraja'aro]

We're not the ones getting the bridge, our neighbours are.

So, your neighbours are getting the bridge without being asked?