Really? Because that would imply most coalition governments in PR countries are also less legitimate. Particularly when heeding the demands/requests from the minority-members of the coalition as part of the bargain for gaining their support.Originally Posted by Aimless
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Poor example. France is not to the right of anything except the English Channel.
Who were the losers this time? The only losers are the people, not the parties. The two most successful parties are obviously not interested in changing a system that benefits them.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If by people you mean candidates then you're right. Every candidate who didn't win, lost. That's a tautology. Every candidate who came first won regardless of party. Every candidate who didn't, didn't. That's the way it works.
Perhaps less legitimate than having a real majority but perhaps more legitimate than what you got with this election. There's nothing stopping parties from negotiating across political blocs to get greater legitimacy as well as to reduce the influence of the lunatic fringe.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Don't be silly, I meant voters of course So silly.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I was referring the UMP's attempt to steal the vote of the National Front.
If by "losers" you mean people don't get the policies they want when they're a minority, then sure. But last I checked, that's what democracy is about.
Except for politics.
Hope is the denial of reality
Voters won in 100% of constituencies. Voters in literally every single constituency got their most popular candidate. By definition 100% of constituencies were won by the most popular one. Why should they get the less popular one?
Really? Cause I coulda sworn a minority of the votes got one party a majority so it seems democracy in the UK is really about getting the policies you want when you're in one of several minoritiesoops
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Why? What makes the policies of a generic Coalition-minor Green party more legitimate than Tory policies enacted consequent to this election? What is it about negotiating across political blocs post-election that confers more legitimacy than being the plurality-party?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I wouldn't be so quick to define it this narrowly - a ochlocracy is not a place you want to live in. Not respecting the wishes of a minority is a sure-fire way to social problems.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
As long as the minority enjoys general protections and isn't a "permanent minority", it's not really a problem.
Hope is the denial of reality
But if said minority's votes get ignored regularly because one political party simply is more popular several periods running, then you get a problem.
If it's only non-permanent in theory, then this argument doesn't really wash. And let's not forget that we're still talking about years here.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
It's not like in PR certain parties aren't consistently left out of the coalition and therefore an ignored minority. Flemish Block is a good example, but it also happens to parties that are less on the fringe. Over here the socialist party has never been in a coalition, nor have several other parties that have had quite a few seats at one time. Conversely the SGP which I can't remember ever having more than 2 seats (out of 150) have a few times (Though not with much influence).
I do wonder Rand, since you keep saying it's all about persons not parties, do MPs often vote outside the party lines, or just when it's a safe vote? I remember some stories about rather forceful whips. Which goes a bit against your mantra about that
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
In the context of this discussion I'm endorsing the view that one aspect of legitimacy in a democracy should be to represent the views and interests of as many voters as possible in Parliament as fairly as possible so that representatives are fit example forced to work with their political opponents who represent a large number of people to whom the government has a responsibility even though they didn't vote for said government. RB's position seems to be that the only thing that matters is procedure.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No, they rarely vote against the party line unless they feel especially strongly about the issue or they're Tories and the current PM isn't being reactionary and unpleasant enough for their tastes.
Randblade, of course, is switching between de facto and de jure understanding of events as it suits his case, such as it is: the AV referendum should be understood as a de facto referendum on PR and any other sort of electoral reform. Meanwhile, we should pretend that when we vote in our general election we're simply selecting a local representative and nothing more, and pretend we're not electing the fucking government of the country.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
We are a representative democracy. We don't elect party slates we elect individual representatives.Really? Cause I coulda sworn a minority of the votes got one party a majority so it seems democracy in the UK is really about getting the policies you want when you're in one of several minorities
Winning 330 constituencies is what got the party a majority. The percentage is neither here no there.
Some do more than others. Certain MPs are known for being serial rebels against the party whip. As examples off the top of my head Bill Cash for the Tories and Diane Abbott for Labour. These MPs though both represent constituencies where their views are popular so both of these MPs are more extreme that their party leaders but so to are the voters they represent.
MPs have two masters. Yes they represent the party and the whip, but ultimately they represent their own constituents and their career lives or dies at the grace of their constituents. As Labour's Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls and Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander both found out to their cost on Thursday. On top other examples of Portillo moments. Lose the confidence of your constituents and it's goodbye. That's our democracy.
How many other nations would see the opposition lose both their Chancellor and Foreign Secretary because their constituents decided they weren't happy?
The website www.theyworkforyou.com has an excellent database of every MP and shows how they've voted and spoken on issues. Some MPs as I said are more or less loyal to the party line than others, but all MPs represent a constituency with a personal mandate. The fact they have to answer to their real bosses for election keeps them honest. You can't just toe the party line to get to the top of your party list.
Incidentally I'm not saying it's about people not parties it's about both obviously but each constituency gets one person with the most popular mandate.
No we're doing both.
Last edited by RandBlade; 05-11-2015 at 12:46 AM.
Wait, don't many MPs "win" their constituencies on a minority share of the votes? How are their victories any different from the party winning despite having a minority of all votes?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Scenario 1: party A gets 40% of the vote and gets the seat. It gets to do whatever it wants. That means a party representing 40% gets all the decision-making power.
Scenario 2: party A gets 40% of the vote and enters a coalition with party B, which has 11% of the vote. Party A gets to more or less do whatever it wants, except for the things it must promise party B. So now 90% of the policies are passed by a party that has 40% support, and 10% of the policies are passed by a party that has 11% support. How is this any more or less legitimate or democratic than scenario 1? Is it really that hard to accept that there are many different ways of obtaining legitimacy? Or that there's no neat solution to representing the popular will?
Hope is the denial of reality
Both victories are totally acceptable and legitimate. All MPs win, no need for quotation marks, their constituencies on a plurality of the votes. There was no more popular candidate. Why should anyone other than the winner get the seat?
But is that what is actually happening in coalition arrangements? With certain longstanding partners, or possibly in some ranked-priority voting examples, maybe it can be considered the case that the voting for a party included the predicted coalition partners and their interests but I wouldn't be willing to make assert that as a general principle of parliamentary coalitions. You're not representing the views and interests of as many voters as possible in that sort of arrangement, you're conflating the diverse views of voters based on political maneuvering undertaken AFTER the voting. That's just ludicrous.
Are you ignoring the concept of plurality for deliberate distortion value?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Well said Fuzzy. All governments end up with some form of internal coalition. Under Aimless's suggestions that happens after the voting is completed and is based on the manoeuvres and negotiations of politicians. In two party nations like the UK and USA the internal coalition is within a party and is fully known about before voting.
But you aren't, HM is appointing the ff-ing government of the country
Congratulations America
LOL Hazir
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Hope is the denial of reality
Blocked due to copyright.
Makes sense. I think both parties knew which way it was going based on where Miliband and Cameron were campaigning in the final days. Miliband was targeting the most extremely marginal targets - the ones that should be easy wins based on the opinion polls that were out. This seemed like a waste of time as they were supposed to be in the bag. Cameron stopped campaigning in Tory seats at all and started targeting the ones which were needed to get up to a majority, this seemed again a waste of time and why wasn't he defending our existing seats rather than try to get new ones.
In the end, Miliband failed to win even the most marginal ones he was campaigning in (and Cameron had left in the final days) while the targets we weren't supposed to win fell. Both parties must have known what was going on.
The danger for the Lib Dems now is not only have they lost their seats but they've lost almost all their runner up spots as well. Posted above the new image colour image as to what the country looks like now (Maggie Simpson) but the following are from who has the runner up spot.
2010 Runners Up:
2015 Runners Up:
Got the images from here
Not many launch pads for next time.
That's odd. Youtube is blocked?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ae_1240071259
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
