The British general election three weeks ago clearly portrayed the obvious shortcomings of the British "first-past-the-post"-electoral system; The Labour party obtained no more than 355 of the votes but, nevertheless, managed to get 55% of the seats. This outrageous discrepancy between the peoples`stated will and the actual outcome of the election, has once again sparked the debate for a large-scale electoral reform but this time, it seems, the British are truly fed up with being governed by a dictatorship by the minority.
Paradoxically, the opposition Conservative-party, which also suffered at the election and was under-represented in terms of votes, are the most vehement supporters of the existing system claiming it yields the country a stable and strong government which is not dependent on the whims of any coalition-partners.
However, this argument fails to take into account the very fact that the electoral system shapes the parties into being very broad coalitions in themselves. Disunity is the worst enemy of any political party, especially of those operating under the FPTP.
It is outrageous and, to some extent, ridiculous to claim that the present electoral system in the UK had anything to do with democracy or fairness. Fortunately, the eyes of the British public are beginning to open and they are not having this any more.
This is, sadly, where the unanimousity ends. There are various suggestions as which system should replace the current system and, of course, the Tories don`t want to replace it with any system at all.
The most popular suggestion is the so-called MMP-formula, ie. Mixed-member-proportional-system, currently employed in Germany, and, more importantly from the point of view of the British, in New Zealand.
It combines the current feature of the system by yielding half of the MP`s through single-member constituencies while the entire composition of the house is dependant on the outcome of the election in the entire country based on the proportional share of the votes between the various parties. It is deemed necessary that a threshold of 5% or so be employed in order to avoid excessive fragmentation of the political spectrum as a result of the election.
In simple terms, each voter has two ballots: one for the constituency candidate and another for the party-list. The latter vote is more important because it determines the distribution of seats. Needless to say, the voter can split his/her ticket, which is undoubtedly a fascinating feature of the system; if you hate your local MP but support his party, you can try to get rid of him by voting for his rival while you can cast the "safe" ballot in favour of his party.
New Zealand has three elections of experience of this system and the system has worked reasonably well, at least to the extent that there is no widespread desire within the political circles to return to the old system. Of course, the system has its drawbacks, most notably related to coalition-wrangling, but none of any which would outweigh its benefits.
Paradoxically, the opposition Conservative-party, which also suffered at the election and was under-represented in terms of votes, are the most vehement supporters of the existing system claiming it yields the country a stable and strong government which is not dependent on the whims of any coalition-partners.
However, this argument fails to take into account the very fact that the electoral system shapes the parties into being very broad coalitions in themselves. Disunity is the worst enemy of any political party, especially of those operating under the FPTP.
It is outrageous and, to some extent, ridiculous to claim that the present electoral system in the UK had anything to do with democracy or fairness. Fortunately, the eyes of the British public are beginning to open and they are not having this any more.
This is, sadly, where the unanimousity ends. There are various suggestions as which system should replace the current system and, of course, the Tories don`t want to replace it with any system at all.
The most popular suggestion is the so-called MMP-formula, ie. Mixed-member-proportional-system, currently employed in Germany, and, more importantly from the point of view of the British, in New Zealand.
It combines the current feature of the system by yielding half of the MP`s through single-member constituencies while the entire composition of the house is dependant on the outcome of the election in the entire country based on the proportional share of the votes between the various parties. It is deemed necessary that a threshold of 5% or so be employed in order to avoid excessive fragmentation of the political spectrum as a result of the election.
In simple terms, each voter has two ballots: one for the constituency candidate and another for the party-list. The latter vote is more important because it determines the distribution of seats. Needless to say, the voter can split his/her ticket, which is undoubtedly a fascinating feature of the system; if you hate your local MP but support his party, you can try to get rid of him by voting for his rival while you can cast the "safe" ballot in favour of his party.
New Zealand has three elections of experience of this system and the system has worked reasonably well, at least to the extent that there is no widespread desire within the political circles to return to the old system. Of course, the system has its drawbacks, most notably related to coalition-wrangling, but none of any which would outweigh its benefits.
Vastaukset 7
Vanhimmat
I mean of course: the Labour party obtained no more than 35% of the votes which of course is a bit more than 355 but that was a typing error. I`m sorry.
A similar system to the German or New Zealand systems is already used much closer to home. The Scottish parliament uses a system similar to that of the German system whereby each voter has two votes, one for the constituency candidate and the other for the party-list.
Experiences have so far been very encouraging and I´m convinced that this electoral model will be used throughout the UK at the next election. The existing electoral system is so unfair and plainly undemocratic that there is no option for a change. 35% of votes yielding 55% of parliamentary seats is no democracy.
The experiences from the Scottish AV-votes have beeb far from encouraging. For a start, there have been popular misconceptions about how the system works, funnily, these misconceptions are extremely contrary to each other; when people have two ballots, one for their local candidate and the other for the party-list, some people have concluded that this party-list vote is some kind of second choice and may therefore not be for the same party as the vote for the local candidate.
Another usual misconception is completely opposite to the formerly mentioned one. Some people think that you must absolutely cast your party-list vote for the same paty as the vote for the local candidate, otherwise it is disqualified or something.
These two examples clearly portray the shortcomings of the now-adays fashionable MMP-system. Even though the present British electoral system is arcane and the result of the recent election clearly portrayed its most serious shortcomings, I wouldn`t be all that sure that the citizens of the UK would like to see the back of it. Even if it is discarded in favour of some form of PR, it is essential that there is one man, one vote. Casting two ballots, in my opinion, seems like some adolescent who can`t make up his or her mind whom to vote for.
Despite the shortcomings of the present system, it has served the British fairly well for hundreds of years and the stable and strong government it provides, is often seen to take priority over the abstract notion of fairness of votes. Besides, the constituency-division has never been questioned by any serious players in the political system; never have there been accusations of deliberate gerrymandering of the constituencies in order to favour some party.
All these electoral reformists would do themselves a great favour by letting things be as they are. Any form of PR is alien to the British political culture, as well as the FPTP is alien to the political cultures of most continental European countries, but still the British don`t lecture the continental countries how to run their elections, so why should the continentals lecture the British about democracy? I know that this is a nasty thing to say but I`ll say it anyway. The British have much more experience of democracy than Germans for that matter.
What do you base on your assumptions that the Scots wouldn`t be able to tell the difference between the local vote and the party vote. Have you actually ever been to Scotland? Do you take the Scots as some kind of morons or something? I have read this same two-way argument against the use of the current electoral system in the elections to the Scottish parliament and I can assure you that I have never met anyone who would have had any of such difficulties. All this talk about how complicated and prone to misunderstandings the system is, is nothing more than propaganda on part of those who would want to see the old British system also in the Scottish elections.
The fact is that out of the 139 seats to the Scottish parliament the 72 Westminster seats serve as the local constituency seats and the remaining 67 are filled by list seats. Of the 72 seats, about 65 go every time to the Labour party even though they never get more than 40-45% of the votes cast in Scotland. Of course, if you love one-party rule, a system whereby such unfair degree of representation would prevail, would suit you very well but I can tell you that no-one in Scotland, not even Labour-voters, would want anything like that system to prevail.
I do not agree with your proposal about the NZ system of electing the parliament. I´m a staunch proponent of the PR but it is clear in the mind of every civilized westerner that elections are about one man, or a woman for that matter, having one vote and therefore all these suggestions about having two votes fall into the dustbin of democracy. PR yes but two votes no!
I`m absolutely convinced that the next British parliamentary election will be under different rules than the current first-past-the-post. The outcome of the election a little over a month ago proved that the current system is moribund and should be replaced with a more representative system.
Be it a NZ-system or STV anything is better than the current travesty of democracy. A government which gets 35% of the votes gets 55% of the seats! Can that be democracy? Far from it!
The British electoral system is profoundly undemocratic, unfair and capricious. It is impossible for me to understand why have the British put up with a system which treats votes cast in different parts of the country in such an unequal manner. 35% of the votes and 55% of the seats, no no, that is no democracy even though the British often like to descibe themselves as some sort of beacon of light of democracy in the world. Fortunately, the British people have woken up to the fact that their electoral system is a farce and Tony Blair saying he has a mandate to govern alone, is little more than a joke.
Britain needs a new electoral system. Whatever it may be, it can hardly be worse than the current travesty of democracy.