Is British democracy due for an upgrade?

[Josquius]

I think his government is broadly incompetent (with one or two exceptions) and would hope that he'll ousted the day after the election - regardless of result.  Despite all that I can't bring myself to vote for the Tories and Cameron, there's something about Cameron that just makes me recoil.

That's my thinking too.
The day after the election maybe being a bit of an exageration- too much of a sign of panic to the people.
If they win I'd think he will hang on for quite a few weeks whilst labour wait for the tories to turn on each other before they make their own changes.

Generally...this next election is absolutely awful. Truly one of who do you hate least. Its just a shame we don't have this system established already then the lib dems could be in with a shot.

[grumbler]

If Britain was a democratic country we would leave the EU, have capital punishment and pedophiles would have their testicles cut off. I'm also somewhat dubious about how badly such matters as freedom and the economy would fare. I prefer representative democracy, we have our say every few years and vote for people who are, hopefully, somewhat wiser and more intelligent than the average.

You oppose democracy but prefer democracy??? 

Why is it that people cannot understand that democracy simply means "rule by the people."  It doesn't mean rule by the mob, and doesn't mean that one cannot elect representatives to make the day-to-day decisions.

Representative democracy is a type of democracy.  Note the work "democracy" in the name.  It is not the only type, of course, but to oppose democracy is to oppose representative democracy as well.

[grumbler]

This is my favourite system of PR.  But I don't support it.  I agree with RH this sounds far too much like democracy.  The people, God bless the, should be kept as far away from their government as feasibly possible.  Speaking of which, is it time to bring back the convention of allowing Peers to serve as PM?

I've decided after much struggling that I can't, in conscience support Cameron and the Tories - not even slightly - and, as I'm in a marginal seat, I'll be voting for Brown again.

If you don't support democracy, why vote?  A popular vote is merely an exercise in democracy.

[Neil]

I like democracy.

That's because you're rather naive.

[Sheilbh]

On the other hand, the tories are still unpopular and distrusted; what people wanted appears to be New Labour's vision of Britain.........hence the gloom and despondency.

I also look at how unimpressive the Tories are in the context of this election and think they're not ready to win.  I mean more than half the country hates Brown, they're unsatisfied, the economy's up the shitter and Parliament's reputation is pretty low.  Despite that the Tories don't actually seem to be doing that well.  I mean if they can't have this election as a sure thing then lord knows what they'll do to the country.

[Agelastus]

I am not in the least surprised by Sheilbh's decision to vote for Brown (it was obvious to me his vote was solid when he expressed sympathy for Brown a couple of months ago.)

Gordon Brown's latest electoral (ploy to push an electoral reform that the Labour party has been opposed to for the last twelve years) is disgusting, even by the low standards he has fallen too. This is the sort of commitment you put in a manifesto, not try to push through as the last act of a dying parliament. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that he has also been trotting out his "human side" over the last few days (he's been discussing the pain of the loss of his child at every opportunity...I believe he experienced grief, but deciding it's "time to talk" just before an election where he needs to humanise himself??? The man is slime.)

The trouble is, like others I can see Blair in Cameron, which makes me uneasy. I always considered Blair a slimeball; something about his features and his way of speaking made me shudder. Cameron doesn't make me shudder outright, but he gives some of the same chameleon impression. I'd much prefer it if the Tories were under Hague or Howard. And please god let there not be a hung parliament; can you imagine what it would be like if, say, Plaid Cymru held the balance of power between a Labour/Lib alliance and a Tory/Unionist/SNP Alliance (I am sure my fellow Brits have noticed that while Labour has been mending fences with the Lib-Dems, the Tories have been mending fences with the Unionists and, to my astonishment, the SNP?)

It would be interesting to see some polls about which way the country would vote. I have the impression, which may be mistaken, that the general populace are reasonably happy with "First Past the Post".

Gordon Brown also deserves total blame for the mess our economy is in. I'm amazed at how well he was able to gull the public that he was not a traditional "tax and spend" Labour chancellor when he was being just that. He is more responsible than any other individual for the black holes in various pension schemes. He dithered over Northern Rock so long that he nearly set off a chain reaction taking down our banking system. He has slowed our recovery by leaving the country in limbo (everybody knows cuts have to come, but as long as he was not admitting it or saying where they would fall, NO-ONE was willing to start spending again because of the uncertainty.)

Not to mention that there is some cause to be concerned about his mental stability. He gives me the impression that he actually believes that "I saved the world" line he gaffed in parliament with a few months ago.

[citizen k]

But, but... Brown is dour.

[dps]

IMO, first past the post is the best way to hold a popular election.

If you really want to make sure that the winner gets an absolute majority (something I don't really see as necessary), then having a run-off is way better than the AV system IMO.

[Viking]

IMO, first past the post is the best way to hold a popular election.

If you really want to make sure that the winner gets an absolute majority (something I don't really see as necessary), then having a run-off is way better than the AV system IMO.

Runoffs can take time and money, if you are going to have runoffs you might as well go for the Single Transferable Vote like in Australia, where you place the candidates in your order of preference.

[Sheilbh]

I am not in the least surprised by Sheilbh's decision to vote for Brown (it was obvious to me his vote was solid when he expressed sympathy for Brown a couple of months ago.)

I expressed sympathy with Sarah Palin in September '08 - it doesn't mean anything.  I think in both cases the media and opposition became personally cruel.

The trouble is, like others I can see Blair in Cameron, which makes me uneasy.

If I could see a jot of Blair in Cameron he'd have my whole-hearted support.  I see more Neil Kinnock in Cameron.

[dps]

Single Transferable Vote like in Australia, where you place the candidates in your order of preference.

[The Brain]

Single Transferable Vote like in Australia, where you place the candidates in your order of preference.

You always got picked last in school, huh?

[Martinus]

Funny thing that in Poland the Civil Platform has been campaigning for a voting system reform that would make it like the British one, because it fosters personal responsibility, candidate recognition and would make forming a majority government easier (as opposed to constantly patching up different coalitions). The current system is being perceived as corrupt, party-dominated and leaving the voter with little influence on the actual personal composition of the parliament.

I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.

[Martinus]

FPP has it's advantages.

First of all it makes it impossible for wierdo fucked up parties like the BNP make it to parliament, unless they have an outstanding candidate.
Second of all it make sure that the winner of a national election tends to win with large enough majorities to actually rule and suffer attrition of MPs and public support.


Both of which are advantages. In britain I get the impression that the main complaint about FPP is that the wrong party wins the election. In my view that is the worst possible reason to change the system.

Completely agree. My only concern about FPP is connected with its side-effected - i.e. that there needs to be more electoral circuits, which in turn means you need to have a strong candidate in each, which means you may end up running some locally-loved hillbilly who will be too provincial compared to a situation if you had the party HQ nominate the candidates.

That being said, there are tools to prevent the non-FPP system from producing fringe candidates too. For example, in Poland, a party still needs to get 7% of votes at least on a national scale in order to get into the Parliament - otherwise votes cast on its candidates are simply disregarded. That way in Poland we have now only 4 parties in the parliament, which is pretty manageable. Of course a system like a Danish one (where there is no such minimum entry threshold) is just a hell of idiocy.

[dps]

Completely agree. My only concern about FPP is connected with its side-effected - i.e. that there needs to be more electoral circuits, which in turn means you need to have a strong candidate in each, which means you may end up running some locally-loved hillbilly who will be too provincial compared to a situation if you had the party HQ nominate the candidates.

That being said, there are tools to prevent the non-FPP system from producing fringe candidates too. For example, in Poland, a party still needs to get 7% of votes at least on a national scale in order to get into the Parliament - otherwise votes cast on its candidates are simply disregarded. That way in Poland we have now only 4 parties in the parliament, which is pretty manageable. Of course a system like a Danish one (where there is no such minimum entry threshold) is just a hell of idiocy.

I'm not sure that that has anything to do with using FPP or any other given voting system per se, though.  In the US, FPP systems are near-universal, but it's almost impossible to be elected to Congress as anything other than a Democrat or Republican.  Heck, it's almost impossible to be elected as the local dogcatcher as anything but a Democrat or Republican (and yes, in many places in America, even the local dogcatcher is an elected office).