Hung parliament who does it work ?

[looney]

This is the key for me and the reason why I will be voting Lib Dem. If they are able to form a coalition with either of the parties and force through a referendum on proportional representation then we might stand a chance of dispensing with our hugely unfair and undemocratic voting system.

Whats unfair about it? Most people when specificly asked like systems that make it easier to remove individuals and Governments. Its not undemocratic, PR systems are the ones that both have unstable governments, ie italy in the past and one party rule for 70 years, sweden or Mexico. In a fast changing world we need a system that can bring a lot of change. Its fair and democratic.

A system in which millions of people place votes that have no influence on which candidates are elected

Party lists make this worse.

elected and hands power to a single party which enjoys the support of nowhere near a majority of voters.

How would a coalition be any better? Taken to its conclusion would be direct democracy. Sometimes decisive decisions are needed not deal making compromises.

 

[looney]

No, TLO was right. They lost their majority after the Barnsley East by-election in December 1996.

Major limped on as a minority government for five more months.

This is Rubbish. The conservatives won with an overall majority of 21 seats.

Thier were 18 bi-elections, "The Conservatives lost
eight seats of which four went to the Liberal
Democrats and three to Labour. Sixteen of the
by-elections were caused by the death of the
sitting Member of Parliament, while the other two
followed resignations."

Losing eight seats reduces a majority by 16, 21 -16=5

Again, the conservatives did not lose their overall majority.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/M14.pdf

 

[looney]

correction the majority was -1 with 2 bi-elections pending. Plus the speakers vote if that still holds. Apologies

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Either way ... a "majority" is whatever support the ruling party can manage to achieve, over and above the votes of all the others. Even if the opposition theoretically outnumbers the government, that is only significant if all opposition parties agree to combine together with each other and vote down government proposals.

Usually they don't. It's perfectly possible to run a government with no overall majority in parliament. The trouble is most likely to come from dissident rebels inside the governing party. They are the ones that cause "minority" governments to collapse.

 

[The Large One]

correction the majority was -1 with 2 bi-elections pending. Plus the speakers vote if that still holds. Apologies

Accepted.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

correction the majority was -1 with 2 bi-elections pending. Plus the speakers vote if that still holds. Apologies

During that Parliament, there were also many cross-party defections from the Tories which also whittled down the total number of Tory MPs.

 

[Half Time Pies]

Whats unfair about it?

How is it fair that a party that represents around 35% of the electorate recieves 100% of the power?

How is it democratic that a candidate with less than 20% of the electorate support gets to represent the view of his constituency in Westminster (e.g george galloway)?

"Most people when specificly asked like systems that make it easier to remove individuals and Governments. Its not undemocratic, PR systems are the ones that both have unstable governments, ie italy in the past and one party rule for 70 years, sweden or Mexico. In a fast changing world we need a system that can bring a lot of change. Its fair and democratic."

Since when has first past the post made it easier to remove individuals and governments? Over the past 120 years only in 1970 has a clear majority of one party been replaced by a clear majority for another. By taking safe seats for granted and concentrating on marginal seats a party can win an election despite being unpopular. Between the 1997 election and 2005 election the labour party has seen its percentage of the vote drop 8 percent yet has hardly been punished for this drop in support.

That some governments have overly stable or unstable governments often has more to do with cultural issues than the voting systems (i.e. sweden, Italy). Most countries in Europe use systems of PR and have no problems with unstable governments. Incidentaly most counties in Europe also have a higher voter turnout than the UK.

Party lists make this worse.

How do they make this worse? Most people dont even know who their constituent MP is and party whips make them largely irrelevant anyway.

How would a coalition be any better? Taken to its conclusion would be direct democracy. Sometimes decisive decisions are needed not deal making compromises.

So in your mind every country with PR is unable to make descisions? Remember very few countries still use our outdated FPTP system.

Of course its better to have semi dictatorships where a small percentage of the electorate hold all of the power just so as descisions can be made? Aferall, who cares if the descisions are unpopular as long as they are made.

 

[looney]

So in your mind every country with PR is unable to make descisions? Remember very few countries still use our outdated FPTP system.

Of course its better to have semi dictatorships where a small percentage of the electorate hold all of the power just so as descisions can be made? Aferall, who cares if the descisions are unpopular as long as they are made.

Wow so much rhetoric. PR is about a small percentage of the electorate holding all the power, thats why small parties are in favour of it.

 

[Half Time Pies]

Wow so much rhetoric. PR is about a small percentage of the electorate holding all the power, thats why small parties are in favour of it.

No, the reason that small parties are in favour of PR is because it would give them a fair proportion of the seats in parliament for the votes that they receive. Under FPTP small parties are frozen out.

Its amazing how the main parties have managed to propagate all of these myths about PR and that people swallow them. The only reason that we retain FPTP is because it suits the interests of the main 2 parties by allowing them to form governments with 100% of the power with the support of as little as 9.5 million voters.