Another Keeper
"The flaw in your argument is that if a majority voted for someone whom they thought had no chance then they'd get in. You'd still have a government, but quite what its makeup would be I have no idea, since when push comes to shove they'd still have to come up with some policies for running the country. I suspect the chaos that would ensue would quickly bring these Raving Loonies, whether official or not, to their senses and hopefully the rest of us as well."
Quoted from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbfivelive/F2148564?thread=2267363&post=26190130#p26190130
I don't see that as a flaw at all. If a majority of the people in this country voted for no hopers, there would be some weird politics going on in Parliament. We'd have the extreme right, the extreme left, greens, Christians and the extremely weird with NOBODY holding the balance of power.
These people would have to find things they COULD agree upon and we'd gain from the Wisdom of Crowds. In the end, you could not find any group of six hundred-odd people in this country who would rule much better or any worse than the current lot.
That said, at what point do you think the no hopers would form a government? They're such a disparate group that they wouldn't be cohesive. If the no hopers got less than say 70% of the vote, we'd still find ourselves with a (albeit minority) Labour or Tory government. If 80% of the population REALLY want to vote "None of the Above" then the major parties are so out of touch with the electorate, or so corrupt, or so scandal-ridden or any combination of these that they do not deserve power.
Quoted from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbfivelive/F2148564?thread=2267363&post=26190130#p26190130
I don't see that as a flaw at all. If a majority of the people in this country voted for no hopers, there would be some weird politics going on in Parliament. We'd have the extreme right, the extreme left, greens, Christians and the extremely weird with NOBODY holding the balance of power.
These people would have to find things they COULD agree upon and we'd gain from the Wisdom of Crowds. In the end, you could not find any group of six hundred-odd people in this country who would rule much better or any worse than the current lot.
That said, at what point do you think the no hopers would form a government? They're such a disparate group that they wouldn't be cohesive. If the no hopers got less than say 70% of the vote, we'd still find ourselves with a (albeit minority) Labour or Tory government. If 80% of the population REALLY want to vote "None of the Above" then the major parties are so out of touch with the electorate, or so corrupt, or so scandal-ridden or any combination of these that they do not deserve power.
posted by ur.alcuin@googlemail.com at 12:59 PM
5 Comments:
Therein lies the only and VERY VERY BIG flaw with PR.
Sure Span. Many people see it as a flaw in PR. I see it as a big plus, not least because it will leave the forming of coalitions until AFTER the election so that the people can have more choice about who they vote for and of which PART of a coalition.
The Conservative Party is a coalition of Thatcherites, One Nation Tories, Imperialists, Paternalists, Aristocrats and other factions. The Labour Party is also a coalition, how could anything containing both Diane Abbot and David Milliband be otherwise? The Lib Dems is an even more obvious coalition because we saw it being formed in the eighties.
The big plus of PR is, it will destroy these coalitions. After the Blairite Party comes through the elections, they might want to work with the Social Democrats and the One-Nation Tories, depending who had the seats and who could work together.
To me, this is all positive. A Parliament in which every vote is worth Ladbrokes running a bet on is a Democratic Parliament, and an unpredictable one.
I dislike tactical voting. I always vote according to my conscience - I mean the party which appeals to me the most. At the moment I vote for the conservative Coalition party, and the Christian Democratic party. I'm able to vote for both due to our PR system.
If people want politics in the UK to change, then the UK needs PR.
But Finn, what if, looking at all the parties available, your conscience can't find a party you'd put your trust in? But then you find another party that you definitely DON'T want. Would your conscience then not REQUIRE you to vote "tactically", in a PR system, I guess that means voting for a party that promises not to work with the party you dislike?
I neglected to consider that, Alcuin. In such a situation, then yes, you're right. When I wrote my reply I had in mind people who say *I like that party, but they have no chance of winning so I'll vote for so-and-so instead'; or people who vote for a party not of their first choice in order to remove the current government- you know: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Post a Comment
<< Home