Should a referendum on Scottish independence only include people living in Scotland?

[Big J]

8 hours ago, trigger_andy said:

 

No one seems bothered about FOTP when their Party wins. No one in the US seems bothered by the Electoral Collage when their Party wins. But when they lose they sure like to moan about it.

What difference to the election would have PR made to the party you chose to vote for?

 

 

As you've alluded to in your next post, the Lib Dems (who I voted for) would have had 60 seats.

 

The issue is that if you measure the democratic mandate in a country by whether a tiny majority vote is implemented, but then allow a party to take a huge majority of the MPs on a minority vote, you're left with a very confused and antidemocratic situation. For a party to with a huge majority, elected by a minority, to be able to steamroller through any legislation makes a very strong case for PR.

[trigger_andy]

Just now, Big J said:

 

As you've alluded to in your next post, the Lib Dems (who I voted for) would have had 60 seats.

 

The issue is that if you measure the democratic mandate in a country by whether a tiny majority vote is implemented, but then allow a party to take a huge majority of the MPs on a minority vote, you're left with a very confused and antidemocratic situation. For a party to with a huge majority, elected by a minority, to be able to steamroller through any legislation makes a very strong case for PR.

 

 

But even with PR the Tories would still have the most seats? 

 

Tory = 288

 

Labour = 216

 

Lib Dems = 70 

 

SNP = 28

 

Green = 12

 

Brexit Party =10

 

In my mind that party with the most seats wins. Is that not Democracy? The party with the most votes wins? 

 

But for a PR system to be fair no coalitions would be allowed to form. This in my mind is thwarting Democracy. And Anything put to the House would also be on a Democratic basis. Whatever gets the most votes wins, not by any margin, just purely on votes alone. Otherwise we'd see voters even more ignored than we seen during Brexit. 

[Big J]

7 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

 

 

But even with PR the Tories would still have the most seats? 

 

Tory = 288

 

Labour = 216

 

Lib Dems = 70 

 

SNP = 28

 

Green = 12

 

Brexit Party =10

 

In my mind that party with the most seats wins. Is that not Democracy? The party with the most votes wins? 

 

But for a PR system to be fair no coalitions would be allowed to form. This in my mind is thwarting Democracy. And Anything put to the House would also be on a Democratic basis. Whatever gets the most votes wins, not by any margin, just purely on votes alone. Otherwise we'd see voters even more ignored than we seen during Brexit. 

 

I disagree. A working majority would be obtained by parties working together in coalition. The party with the most votes would have the best chance of obtaining that majority, but it wouldn't be a given. 

 

Politics, and society more broadly should be governed by consensus. The oppositional, combative politics which we're used to in the UK don't work for the majority of the population. 

[Mick Dempsey]

I disagree J.

 

Let’s have a winner and let them get on with it, no coalition, no consensus, here’s the job, get on with it, if you fuck it up you’re out on your ear in 5 years.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Mick Dempsey

[trigger_andy]

24 minutes ago, Big J said:

I disagree. A working majority would be obtained by parties working together in coalition. The party with the most votes would have the best chance of obtaining that majority, but it wouldn't be a given. 

Its simply a recipe for disaster and not democratic at all.

 

So if you have a democratic majority it can be wiped out my  parties that lost the democratic vote and club together to twart the will of the majority. Its idiotic. 

 

24 minutes ago, Big J said:

Politics, and society more broadly should be governed by consensus.

Not sure what that means? In general agreement? Thats the opposite that would happen. 

 

24 minutes ago, Big J said:

The oppositional, combative politics which we're used to in the UK don't work for the majority of the population. 

No, thats what happens when the winning party does not have a majority. Which in my mind they should not need. Let PR happen, where it to the Tories would have still won. But winner takes all.

 

Your idea of the winner wins nothing and the parties with the lest votes club together to appear like they have a majority is a slap in the face for democracy and thankfully its not on the cards. 

 

You really do seem bitter that your rather chaotic and impossible to follow views of politics are not represented so you think the current system is not working because regardless what party you vote for your own tick list is not covered.

 

Your own PR System would still see the Tories win, and by a good margin. That would still mean the majority are being represented.

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by trigger_andy

[Richard 1234]

44 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

Its simply a recipe for disaster and not democratic at all.

 

So if you have a democratic majority it can be wiped out my  parties that lost the democratic vote and club together to twart the will of the majority. Its idiotic. 

 

Not sure what that means? In general agreement? Thats the opposite that would happen. 

 

No, thats what happens when the winning party does not have a majority. Which in my mind they should not need. Let PR happen, where it to the Tories would have still won. But winner takes all.

 

Your idea of the winner wins nothing and the parties with the lest votes club together to appear like they have a majority is a slap in the face for democracy and thankfully its not on the cards. 

 

You really do seem bitter that your rather chaotic and impossible to follow views of politics are not represented so you think the current system is not working because regardless what party you vote for your own tick list is not covered.

 

Your own PR System would still see the Tories win, and by a good margin. That would still mean the majority are being represented.

 

Nothing would ever be agreed with pr. it would be like a permanent hung parliament!

[trigger_andy]

Nothing would ever be agreed with pr. it would be like a permanent hung parliament!

Exactly! Only really enticing to someone who’s views are permanently in the minority but don’t think they are wrong, everyone else is. ?

[agrimog]

3 hours ago, Richard 1234 said:

Nothing would ever be agreed with pr. it would be like a permanent hung parliament!

it should be, off all the lamp posts round westmonster

[Big J]

11 hours ago, Richard 1234 said:

Nothing would ever be agreed with pr. it would be like a permanent hung parliament!

 

It would take a period of adjustment for a country used to FPTP, but many other countries manage it, so why shouldn't we? With FPTP, we have a system where the minority can elect a massive majority in parliament, and the concerns and desires of everyone else are disregarded. That isn't democratic. 

[Guest Gimlet]

We've endured 10 years of hung parliaments, coalitions and minority government and the result was petulant gridlocked misery with the electorate completely excluded from the process as competing egos and vested interests jockeyed for position and leadership, vision and firm government went to the wall. It produced plenty of dumb designed-by-committee legislation that did more harm than good, but achieved absolutely nothing of any positive value whatsoever, just wasted a decade of everyone's lives.

The idea of being stuck in that seventh circle of Hell in perpetuity does not appeal at all.  

 

And the government wasn't elected by a minority. That is pure sophistry. No one votes for a coalition in democratic elections. The losing parties are not a single entity. If they were they would have stood as one. Lumping them together after the event to try and contrive a counterfeit loser's majority for something that wasn't on the ballot paper in the first place is a nonsense and insults the intelligence of the electorate.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Gimlet