Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

a bold statement indeed...but let me explain why

i've allowed the dust to settle on the result and read and listened to alot of expert opinion on the ins and outs of the British electoral system and its time to highlight these massive flaws that make the UK probably the most undemocratic democracy in the world

in 1997 both Scotland and Wales were given a body of government to allow desicion making for themselves but only on selected issues...these are known as devolved powers and allow those parliments to address their own Health policies among other things

however

both Scotland and Wales still have members of parliment in Westminster (the entire UK governing house)

these mp's although representing people from Scotland and Wales, have no say on the devolved issues in their own country...but DO have a say on those same issues only in application to England...so essentially you have mp's from Scotland, powerless to make change in Scotland...but able to effect change in England

now this might seem a little trivial but when put in the context of the recent election results it makes for a disturbing reality

to start with

Labour won again...Labour is the party that has been in power for the last 8 years...headed by Tony Blair

they won by a majority of 66 seats in the house of commons...this means that they have 66 more members of parliment than all the other parties combined

second in the election were the conservative party (remember maggie thatcher?...that's the party she led from 1979-1990 and who were ousted by labour in 1997)

ironically if England were taken as a separate country...then the conservative party would have won...but when the mp's of Wales and Scotland are taken into consideration then Labour won...despite the fact that i previously mentioned that those same mp's have little say in their own countries and have more power over England than they do over Wales and Scotland

remember all the bleating about the US 2000 elections when Bush lost the popular vote but still got into the whitehouse?

well the exact same thing happened in the UK this time and no-one batted and eyelid

the conservatives won the popular vote but still lost heavily

why?

it all comes down to constiuencies

the areas of the country that each member of parliment represents

unlike the states in the US...constituencies in the UK are flexible...the labour government manipulated the constituency boundaries so that they could secure more of an even spread of regular labour votes or in many cases...changed boundaires to try and gain marginal seats

marginal seats are where a party won the last election or a recent bi election by a small number of votes...labour would change the boundaries to incorporate a few extra towns that have traditionally voted more for labour in order to try and change the mp in their favour

these small changes led to a big change

essentially it meant that if both labour and the conservatives got the same % of the overall vote throughout the country...labour would end up with a majority of over 120 seats and could easily use that majority to impose any piece of legislation they wanted

as it stands in the wake of the election...labour got half that majority...despite the fact that they only got 36% of the popular vote

the elections have gotten to the point where only a handful of people in the marginal constituencies are now deciding the election result...it was estimated that 800,000 people decided the election this year and that the rest of the country might as well not have bothered with the trip to the polling station

on top of that...there are investigation ongoing into the use of postal votes...labour party members were sending off for postal votes in other peoples names and then filling them in for labour votes

what about 1 person 1 vote?

not in this election...in some cases people had a voting card delivered in their name in several different constituencies and could easily have cast several votes without it being noticed

now...if things werent complicated enough...the Scottish parliment has an entirely different representational method...where as in England they use the constituency method...in Scotland they use proportional representation...this means that the parliment takes the total % of the vote from the whole country for each party and divides the seats in the parliment to reflect this

but to add another twist...the people who run for election in the Scottish parliment do so by representing a certain area of the country...a constituency by any other name

what this means for the country essentially is that one person can receive the most votes in a certain area of the country...but end up NOT being elected because of the proportional representation method

is this a bad thing?...i don't know...because it has a flip side

in the last Scottish elections the conservative party got 20% of the total vote...and as such are represented in the parliment in that %...but if Scotland were a constituency only parliment then the conservatives would not have a single member of parliment because they never got the majority of the vote in any area...

so would it be right that the 20% of the people who voted for the conservatives would have no representation of their politics in their governing body

bizzare is it not?

it seems this democracy is in a ridiculous state of affairs and needs to be sorted out before all faith in it has been lost completely

Can you condense that. I'm from America..

Originally posted by debbiejo
Can you condense that. I'm from America..

Okay..here goes..democracy is screwed..

good points

Could it be the US isnt the only moron country?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Can you condense that. I'm from America..

no

just kidding

essentially

you have members of parliment from Scotland...who work and decide policy in England...but have little power in Scotland because Scotland has its own devolved parliment

you have an electoral system that if both the main parties had the same share of the vote...then one party would still win by over 100 seats in the parliment

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
Could it be the US isnt the only moron country?

Of course not....but still one of them

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course not....but still one of them

So Marius how would you run things?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Okay..here goes..democracy is screwed..

democracy isnt freedom anyway

Truedom point, indeed.

-AC

deano and AC...perhaps with some input this can be a good discussion as opposed to what it is in danger of becoming

Originally posted by whirlysplat
So Marius how would you run things?


Hmm I don't know....tell me aboot what and I tell you what to do ....and of course I would be right

Well, true freedom is more akin to anarchy than democracy. However, there can be no truely free society ruled by a governement. I can't really speak for the British system of self rule, but here in America, the problem is the people who practice it. The politicians are the problem. More ability to make decisions for itself should be turned over to the people. It should be one person=one vote. The electoral college should be done away with.

We have democracy in Britain!!?? When did this happen!!??!!?? Why was I not told??????? I always believed that what we had was that evil that masquerades as democracy, the Party System..... we are allowed to vote for a party.... by doing so, we are saying "I want this party to rule my country, regardless of the fact that it only represents some of my views and not others, and agree that my vote means I am still held to support that party even if that party totally changes those of its policies that I did agree with...." Democracy?? not quite.... as far as I am concerned, until we get rid of these self serving political parties, and have a system where MPs represent their constituents, rather than the Party or themselves, we can never have democracy.... I also dislike the fact that if no one votes at all, this is taken as agreement with the status quo... we shouyld have, on voting slips, a box marked "none of the above..." thus enabling the people to register their dislike of all the candidates put forward.... if enough people tick the box, someone else would then have to be found, rather than forcing people to participate in the election of someone who they believe cannot adequately represent th views of the constituency.....

It should be one person=one vote.

I should be that person.... the one vote should be mine......

Aaand once more spectacular misapprehension of what 'Democracy' means being spouted around these forums.

We live in a representative democracy. Work out what that means and you have your answer. Don't live in a fantasy world where this is either a dictatorship or that some other option would be better.

Also don't think for one moment that such representation can work without parties.

If you want to talk about boundary reform, there is probably a case. But babbling about the death of democracy, or how we have never had democracy, or how this is a dictatorship, is massively ignorant.

well one of the main methods of vote counting must be undemocratic

as i said

in Scotland we use proportional representation

under this method...the 20% of the people who voted tory are represented by about 20% of the number of seats in the Scottish parliment

but they never actually got the most votes in any single area where they stood

if it had been a constituency method whereby each constituency is represented by the person who got most votes in that area...then the tories would have had not a single person in the Scottish parliment

so which is the right method?

Representative democracy is flawed in that it relies on politicians to vote the way their constituents want them to... Much of the time they don't. Hell, much of the time they don't even know what their constituents want, not that they care.

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM!! AMERICA IS BASICALLY A DEMOCRACY AND IT IS THE BEST THING EVER. YOU GET TO SAY BASICALLY EVERYTHING YOU WANT AND DO JUST ABOUT ANYTHING!!!!!

This thread isn't even about America. wtf.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of democracy... it was originally invented as a joke.... benevolent despotism is by far the best method of government (as all Christians, Muslims and Jews will agree)..... and reluctant as i am, I volunteer myself as the only person capable of pulling the job off....

Originally posted by chithappens
have a link for that?

nope..saw it on a programme about extreme poverty a few years ago...perhaps with the increase in wealth in china and india that the number has gone up a bit though

Hardly a crumbling democracy, at least not as flawed as a democracy founded with a strict ideology to adhere to. But I suppose things need to be amended among the principalities, better than chasin' you lot back into the hills after all.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Hardly a crumbling democracy, at least not as flawed as a democracy founded with a strict ideology to adhere to. But I suppose things need to be amended among the principalities, better than chasin' you lot back into the hills after all.

someone a little bit bitter that England is run by Scots?

Gordon Brown...scot
John Reid...scot
Alistair Darling...scot
Des Browne...scot
Douglas Alexander...scot

just kidding

my point is the democratic system in Britain is wrong and completely undemocratic...see my original post as for why

Well, your original post is rambling and badly presented so few will do that.

It also contains mistakes- Labour won the popular vote, so your comparison with the US elections is poor.

Originally posted by jaden101
someone a little bit bitter that England is run by Scots?

Gordon Brown...scot
John Reid...scot
Alistair Darling...scot
Des Browne...scot
Douglas Alexander...scot

just kidding

my point is the democratic system in Britain is wrong and completely undemocratic...see my original post as for why

It doesn't bother me at all, and I flirt with the pseudo-racist relationship between England and Scotland that both parties engage in. In fact, considering some of the most prominent, influential Britons of all are Scottish and Irish, I'd be a bit of a nut if I was serious. Not that I need to validate myself as a Briton, just I enjoy seeing Scotland lose at Rugby.

Anyway, as Ushgarak says, your first post a is tad rambling and unfocused, you can't help that alot of people are taking it as an opportunity to take a dig at the US or on the recieving end of said dig.

Labour gave you an ineffectual representation of government, which is a nice gesture, even if a little misguided; last time I looked you guys weren't so concerned with appearences. But I disgress, moving on, at least it was not the Wigs putting a collar around your neck.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, your original post is rambling and badly presented so few will do that.

It also contains mistakes- Labour won the popular vote, so your comparison with the US elections is poor.

its not rambling at all...it contains everything you need to know about the absurd nature of the way the UK is governed...if the method is confusing (which to most people in the UK, never mind outside of the UK, it is) then the explanation will be also

how do you simplify and justify Scottish based MP's (not MSP's) being able to vote on devolved matters that will effect only England...yet will not effect their own constituencies?

how is it sensible to have 2 distinct methods of representation?

we are probably the most heavily governed country in the world what with the European parliment, UK parliment and devolved governments as well as local council government

it's a ridiculous state of affairs and the only reason the turnout at the last election was high was because of the war in Iraq fuelling people to go out and vote one both sides

and yes my mistake about the total votes...they won by 600,000 over the tories...yet somehow this equates to (because of the unfair boundary system) as having almot twice the number of seats



you're right...i cant...simply because the US contingent of this forum is the majority...but then if people bothered to read what the thread is about we wouldn't have that problem



uuuhh...what?

Of course it was rambling, jaden. it was poorly laid out and jumped randomly from one point to another. You were not making a coherent point at all and that is why no-one is really paying attention to it. Re-write it to be MUCH more clear and you might get more of a look-in.

I don't think his initial post was rambling really. It seems very clear to me. I am just wondering how accurate it is given that Ush now says that Labour did win the popular vote. I suppose there is some truth to it as those regional systems are outdated in my opinion and can certainly cause someone with the popular vote to lose an election.

Could anyone maybe give sources and statistics on how far this is the case in the UK?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Of course it was rambling, jaden. it was poorly laid out and jumped randomly from one point to another. You were not making a coherent point at all and that is why no-one is really paying attention to it. Re-write it to be MUCH more clear and you might get more of a look-in.

i cant help the structure of the UK electoral system...i've explained it as simply as possible...if people cant understand it in simple form doesn't that tell you something about the system

and at the time it was in the context of the general election so i had to fit the results of that in at the time





irrelevant...the point is that if the 2 main parties had an equal share of the vote then labour would still have had a majority in parliment of over 120 seats....democratic?

well thats just it...you cant give a single set of statistics for the UK as it is run under more that 1 electoral system

Originally posted by jaden101


irrelevant...the point is that if the 2 main parties had an equal share of the vote then labour would still have had a majority in parliment of over 120 seats....democratic?

But they won by 600 000 votes and only have 66 more. How would they get 120 if they were even?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But they won by 600 000 votes and only have 66 more. How would they get 120 if they were even?

they beat the next party by 600,000...not including all the votes that went to other parties...in total they got 36% of the vote...which was slightly over 9,000,000...the next party got 8,500,000 ish...the other parties got the rest shared amongst them...thus the other seats shared among them...reducing the total seats labour got

if all the votes had been equally split among tories and labour...labour would win due to boundary changes in 120 more constituencies

Not to nitpick too harshly, but paragraphs that don't begin with lower case don't quite give you the OUMPH! you get when you watch Countdown.

Originally posted by jaden101
i cant help the structure of the UK electoral system...i've explained it as simply as possible...if people cant understand it in simple form doesn't that tell you something about the system


You cannot help the system, but you CAN help the godawful way you were trying to explain it. Even your presentation was appalling- an endless barrage of short sentences separated by blank lines; exceptionally unappealing to read or even just to glance at. As I say, you must learn to present better if you want to put a point across. bardock's comment I find surprising, but of no consequence. It doesn't change the fact that you laid it out appallingly and explained it just as badly. The fact remains that almost no-one reading your first post really understands what you are saying unless they already knew the issues.

As to your question if the number of seats won was democratic- answer is yes, it is. That's local representation for you. Proportional representation is a joke.

How is proportional representation a joke?

Originally posted by jaden101
they beat the next party by 600,000...not including all the votes that went to other parties...in total they got 36% of the vote...which was slightly over 9,000,000...the next party got 8,500,000 ish...the other parties got the rest shared amongst them...thus the other seats shared among them...reducing the total seats labour got

if all the votes had been equally split among tories and labour...labour would win due to boundary changes in 120 more constituencies Wouldn't that depend on who is voting who? Couldn't just as well the tories have the 120 more?

I guess you mean there were changes made to increase the number of labour seats given the voting habits of the last election weren't changed. Is that what you are saying? Or do I totally miss something here?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wouldn't that depend on who is voting who? Couldn't just as well the tories have the 120 more?

I guess you mean there were changes made to increase the number of labour seats given the voting habits of the last election weren't changed. Is that what you are saying? Or do I totally miss something here?

yes...the governing party can change the constituency boundaries in order to maximise the number of seats it can win

normally it was use census information and past voting patterns to do this

in the case of the last election...we you can see the result...relatively few votes more than the opposition...yet vastly more seats and thus more power to govern

you can see what i mean by the map...blue is the tory opposition...red is the labour government


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/2005UKElectionMap.svg

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You cannot help the system, but you CAN help the godawful way you were trying to explain it. Even your presentation was appalling- an endless barrage of short sentences separated by blank lines; exceptionally unappealing to read or even just to glance at. As I say, you must learn to present better if you want to put a point across. bardock's comment I find surprising, but of no consequence. It doesn't change the fact that you laid it out appallingly and explained it just as badly. The fact remains that almost no-one reading your first post really understands what you are saying unless they already knew the issues.

As to your question if the number of seats won was democratic- answer is yes, it is. That's local representation for you. Proportional representation is a joke.

1st part is irrelevant anyway...but if you wish to explain it better in the context of the last election be my guest...i had no wish to ressurect a thread that is over 2 years old...someone else did

the 2nd point about proportional representation being a joke...while in the case that in a certain area...an MSP can have the most votes yet not be allowed to represent that area...yes...a total joke

but then again...as i stated in my original post...the tories got 20% of the vote in the last general election in scotland but under the UK parliment system of representation...they would have no seats in the Scottish parliment as they never won the most votes in any single constituency...yet under proportional representation...at least the 20% of people who voted tory have some voice in the Scottish government

so which way is the right way?

clearly both cant work side by side as shown in the way MP's representing Scottish constituencies can vote on devolved matters even though their votes wont affect their own constituents but will affect English voters

ive heard the complaint about the system creating an elected dictator.about the government of tony blair(labour) and margaret thather(conservative) and harold wilson(labour)
things do change over time.

Originally posted by jaden101
Okay, here's where I think you're wrong.

Labour had 356 seats or something, Conservatives had 198. Now Scotland and Wales has about 150 or say between them. If all of Scotland and Wales voted Labour, which they didn't, that would be 206 seats for Labour. So that's still a majority, or rather, more than anyone else.

I also noticed that you then mentioned Constituencies. Constituencies are not perfect but better in terms of representation. It's 1 per X amount of people, and in terms of governing, that is a very good system. Better than the US system anyway.

Proportional representation you also mentioned, I am in support for that.

I am also in favour of devolution of parliament as well, however, more to a representational thing, than a state thing. But that's just my opinion, if other people want one parliament in Scotland and one in England, despite the fact that England has 10* more people, it's a democracy.

An alternative system is of course the head count, where every vote counts. That's good, but what if the winning government doesn't have enough mps? That problem can't be avoided.

Another thing. Hyporthetically speaking. Why is that if people in Manchester want something, and people everywhere else want something else, why would manchester have what everyone else wants? Like, if Manchester wants state education, and everyone else doesn't, why should MAnchester not get what they want?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Another thing. Hyporthetically speaking. Why is that if people in Manchester want something, and people everywhere else want something else, why would manchester have what everyone else wants? Like, if Manchester wants state education, and everyone else doesn't, why should MAnchester not get what they want?

because democracy is rule by the majority.... therefore any minority has to accept that (at least this time) they are going to have to do what everyone else wants... for example, if everyone in Manchester votes Tory, and everyone else in the country votes Lib Dem, why doesn't Manchester get to ignore the LibDem government and have their own Tory rulers?

Originally posted by big gay kirk
because democracy is rule by the majority.... therefore any minority has to accept that (at least this time) they are going to have to do what everyone else wants... for example, if everyone in Manchester votes Tory, and everyone else in the country votes Lib Dem, why doesn't Manchester get to ignore the LibDem government and have their own Tory rulers? Cause the government is an authoritarian piece of shit that shoots you dead if you disagree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Cause the government is an authoritarian piece of shit that shoots you dead if you disagree.

i agree.. but then i've never been a fan of democracy.... i believe in a system of one man, one vote ... i should be that man, and it should be my vote....

Originally posted by big gay kirk
i agree.. but then i've never been a fan of democracy.... i believe in a system of one man, one vote ... i should be that man, and it should be my vote.... Haha. Well, there's a 50-50 chance that all gets better in that case.

Originally posted by big gay kirk
because democracy is rule by the majority.... therefore any minority has to accept that (at least this time) they are going to have to do what everyone else wants... for example, if everyone in Manchester votes Tory, and everyone else in the country votes Lib Dem, why doesn't Manchester get to ignore the LibDem government and have their own Tory rulers? why should the minority accept that? What ever happened to giving the people what they want?

Originally posted by lord xyz
why should the minority accept that? What ever happened to giving the people what they want? I think someone noticed that people have opposing wishes.

What the people want is

1: Everything for free
2: Better stuff for free
3: someone else to do all the work
4: Someone else to take all the responsibility
5: To do what they want and stuff everybody else

Unfortunately, this doesn't work.. its called chaos... not anarchy.. anarchy is without leaders.. chaos is without order.. if everyone got what they wanted, there would be nobody to make or grow the stuff the wanters want... so no one would get anything.. as anyone with dependants will tell you... never give people what they want, give them what they need.... the two things are usually mutually exclusive...

if everyone got what they wanted, for example, the death penalty could not exist.. some would want it, some wouldn't, but the poor sap about to be executed could just say, " I want to live ... in a big house with servants, loads of money, and plenty of people to kill..."

Well obviously there'll be order. No taking the rights of others, for what you want, but that counts for both ways.

if everyone ends up getting what they want, there is bound to be a conflict of interests.. the only way to avoid this is either to give the majority what they want, or to give the minority what they want.. i know which one i prefer....

Originally posted by big gay kirk
if everyone ends up getting what they want, there is bound to be a conflict of interests.. the only way to avoid this is either to give the majority what they want, or to give the minority what they want.. i know which one i prefer.... Or just, give the people what they want, and those who don't want, don't get. It's not as if there's one thing for everyone, and whether the people get it should decide on who wants it. It's many things for those who want it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Or just, give the people what they want, and those who don't want, don't get. It's not as if there's one thing for everyone, and whether the people get it should decide on who wants it. It's many things for those who want it.

So, if Person A wants Person B dead and Person B for some reason doesn't want that. Then we can't really give all people what they want already.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, if Person A wants Person B dead and Person B for some reason doesn't want that. Then we can't really give all people what they want already. Yeah, in cases like that, person A won't get what he wants, as it's stopping person B from what he wants.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, in cases like that, person A won't get what he wants, as it's stopping person B from what he wants. Which means you can't give the people what they want always.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Which means you can't give the people what they want always. Not always. Did I say always?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Not always. Did I say always? well, that's what big gay kirk was talking about and since you replied I assume it was what you talked about as well. Wouldn't make sense to reply to him, say no, and then talk about totally differently defined idea.

I believe that's what I did.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I believe that's what I did. Oh well, weird then. Take what I said in reference of what we were talking about.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh well, weird then. Take what I said in reference of what we were talking about. Will do.