Proportional Representation is a great system. We have it in New Zealand. There was once a British conservative MP who said "We don't want proportional representation... just look at the nightmare in New Zealand."
What? Being the least corrupt country in the world? Yes I imagine Tories would be terrified of less corruption...
@larsdalen actually the first past the post system favours the Labour party more. They need about 35% of the vote to gain a majority the Conservatives need at least 40% with the current constituency boundaries. The big cities esp in the north are more highly populated so have more constituencies and are mostly Labour. The south is more rural, lower populated and so has fewer constituencies but are mainly Conservative.
& STAND UP TO THE ISRAEL/AMERICA PACT OVER PALESTINE!
Palestinians have to live on only 15% of regular supplies DUE TO THE ILLEGAL ISRAELI BLAOCKADE WHICH HAS STOOD FOR DECADES. Or are we just another U.S. lap dog state now?
I think that anyone who proposes to put their name foreward for election to Public Office should first have to take and pass the "I`m not a Theiving Bastard" Test !
@streamingmadly So does Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland. They all have proportional representation and they are doing fine.
@cyclingzealot I didn't know that. Israeli politics is screwed up beyond belief. When I wrote that Israel has proportional representation I meant in the same way I would have if I'd wrote that Haiti has cholera. Or that America has a two-party system.
@cyclingzealot New Zealand is doing fine? The running joke is "what's the capital of New Zealand?" Answer "About $10.50". I notice you cunningly left out the debacle preferential and proportional voting is in the Australia senate! Iceland is doing fine? Germany is doing fine? What planet are you from? Next you will tell us that Greece is doing fine!
@irishgodfatherchris Keating called them unrepresentative swill. Senators are supposed to represent States rights, hence equal number of senators from each state (NT & ACT differ). Independents, Democrats, Greens have made a farce of it. Why have a senate or state upper houses at all? Queensland hasn't since 1922. Are we that immature as a nation that we are scared to elect one assembly and let them govern? In that case, perhaps we need a Fuhrer & Gauleiters etc Senators are hindering parasites.
@verziehen the politics of 1922 are completely different to the politics of 2011, if Queensland had a choice I'm sure they would re-instate the upper house, they would just make it very powerless, here is Victoria the Legislative Council, over the last 150 years it has been changed to the point where it is almost ceremonial, but we won't remove it because it gives Ballieu too much power, the upper house exists the keep the lower house in check.
@irishgodfatherchris So it gives Ballieu too much power, thats odd I thought he was elected to have power, just like Brumby was. The upper house exists to keep the lower house in check. "Check" must be a new word for "hinder". Ask anyone you know that's not a party member, to name three upper house reps, while you are at at it ask them to name the senator that represents them and their opposition. Costly, time wasting, hindering, parasites. All of them. If we elect a government LET THEM GOVERN!
Deeply Urban Areas like London should be fully Proportional representation, semi-urban areas which are not entirely Urbanized but are a great deal urbanized should have a mix system, and strictly rural areas should have single member districts.
I believe this is the most fair and most reasonable.
PR doesn't work so well in rural areas, because it is hard to organize due to lack of people. SMD is extremely unfair for urban areas. Best of both.
And please don't bring up Italy or Israel to speak badly about Proportional representation. Israel's mess concerns its relationship with Palestine, not its Knesset. Italy's mess deals with the fact that Italian people don't speak the same language other than Italian, which is an artificial language like Esperanto. There was no Italian language spoken more than a hundred years ago.
So as you can see Regional Problem and National Problem.
@TheRadicalRyushin The problem with Germanys system is its all based on parties, not individuals. Advocates for STV or Cumulative or Instant run off (or a mix of those) want the focus to stay on individuals.
I am sorry, but if you based population in individual, you end up with just individual representation of the people elected rather than the people who elected them.
A senate is a place for individual representation, not... the lower house. You get what I am saying?
@TheRadicalRyushin Well, then you don't understand the system of STV that the video is promoting. The Single Transferable Vote is a multi member version of Instant Run Off (aka Ranked Choice Voting) Voting that places an emphasis on the individual members and not parties. Political parties are not required in STV, proof Cambridge which uses STV and has non partisan elections by law.
@TheRadicalRyushin Instant run off voting IS STV, just for single members. Ireland, Australia and many cities and one state in the US use IRV, and its just single member STV
@TheRadicalRyushin New Zealand uses a similar system, and look at the emphasis there. Leaving your party after youre elected is in fact an offense and voids your seat.
@TheRadicalRyushin "You made four comments to respond to just one, don't you think you are over doing it."
Nope. Blame the amount of text YouTube allows in one post on that.
"Who cares. If you want to be party independent, get elected in the Senate, which under my system would be independent."
Um, real commitment to democracy there. Why shouldn't a representative (the Senate is a representative body isnt it?) be independent? I dont want any coercion into having to choose some party.
@TheRadicalRyushin "The thing is you are taking this under the incentive the politician, but if a Politician wanted to run on his own turf, he should just be a Senator."
Because there's no parties in the Senate..? It's not partisan?
What the hell are you talking about? Neither the house of representatives or senate is designed to accommodate political parties, it's just they have a stranglehold on it. I think you need to take a civics class.
@TheRadicalRyushin "I mean come on, you need a middle route Lower House."
The US "lower house" wouldn't work well with a german system at all, it's designed as I said to elect individuals, even if it was multi-member. Look at Vermont and New Hampshire for examples. You really do need to finish high school.
PR is much better than AV and for that reason, I will be voting no to AV as I see it as a step backwards and it would create more Hung Parliaments which I really don't like/agree with :)
The problem that caused Obama to be elected, which is an economic disaster, is the media and educations systems are crawling with flaming liberals, like Cleese.
Fortunately, or election system does work, and we are about to purge some liberals.
He got into power with a pro animal right, pro gay, pro redistribution of wealth to the little guy, socialized medicine, gun control, and increasing the size of government for social programs.
He went on to do the final solution, which like Affirmative Action, was a gov remedy for past exploitation of one race by another.
Most in media and education are liberals, so don't expect them to emphasize that Hitler was a liberal.
My guess is that I understand sampling error, quantization error, Nyquist criterion, confidence interval, and seat allocation error, as well or better than you.
I'm not talking about the video but about your Hitler-liberal bullshit. In fact the gun-laws in Germany were liberalized (you now like in the non-FOX meaning of that word). Socialised medicine wasn't on the agenda, since Germany had that since the 1890 (from that die-hard communist Bismark, aye?). That pro-gay statement is so incredible stupid I don't know what to say.
He did not use gays. Some SA-men happened to be gay in their private lifes.
Of course you can suspend elections even if everybody has a gun. And Hitler later on allowed every German to buy guns.
In Saddams Hussein's Iraq every man was allowed to own a Kalashnikow and the ammunition to defend his family and himself. Still no elections and a harsh dictatorship.
And that you insitute gun control in a conquered territory with hostiles lurking to kill you everywhere, is kinda...obvious?
About a thousand protesters demanding electoral reform have gathered outside the building where senior Liberal Democrats were meeting in Westminster.
The demonstrators were from groups seeking proportional representation.
The Lib Dems were discussing a possible collaboration with the Tories who FAILED to secure a majority at the general election. Will nick sell out to the Tories and betray the people who voted for him.
The Liberals are a very very old political party (we all know that) and yet they don't support PR because its "fair" they support it because it suits them to do so. They stand a better chance.
For example the argument that votes are not wasted with PR is nonsense. Whilst in a very functional sense they are all USED at the same time they are ALL wasted! Because you can't show your distaste for a party with PR as its hard to kick em out and policies mean "nowt" because its a coalition!
Maybe P.R. doesnt work but the government is deliberately manipulating constituency boundaries to lessen the power of opposition votes.
Major labour voting areas have the edges chopped off to supply votes to more marginal areas and the opposite is done to areas with high opposition support.
The effect first past the post would be vastly reduced by having the boundaries set by an independent commission. It completely undermines the democracy, if the party that is in power can set how valuable votes are in different regions.
This is common practice, which is how labour and tories have stayed in power since 1922!
Wish we had proportional voting here. It would be a great way to get some actual debates going as opposed to the special interest circlejerk we have right now.
@mentalrectangle debates are great but solutions are better my friend. I agree debate would flourish with PR but solutions would be diluted to suit all needs. Problem is there is no catch all solution to ANYTHING which means solving anything is pretty much impossible. Majoritarian (pural) democracy works it is old, tried and tested. PR is new, already showing faults and is a bad system
@caversmill It's unrealistic to expect a newer, better system to be flawless. As long as it is better than the status quo, we should strive for it. When I look at political discourse and the policies of european countries with PR and compare it to the mess that the UK and US systems have, it looks very preferable.
The problem with proportional representation is that it forces people to vote for parties, rather than candidates, and thus gives even more power ot party leaders. If you truly want a deomcratic system, you should abolish the office of Prime Minister and the cabinet made up of MPs, and replace them with an executive elected nationally by the people. And abolish all official recognition of parties. Candidates should be individuals, not slaves of some party.
However true things never work when it comes down to the line were politics and life meet, take the theory of communism, in its true form it has proven to be a real failure, same with true capitalism, as would true democracy which would require every citizen to vote on every law ect ect. Without a head a government cannot really lead and can you imagine hold long it would take some 646 people each with individual opinions to come to agree on anything? Parties have flaws but they create an order
"Without a majority, the time taken to pass any kind of legislation will soar."
Hehe..If pace is the only criterion, an unelected dictator must be the ultimate solution? But we've had on average x2 pieces of legislation EVERY DAY since 'New Labour' came to power 13 years ago, and now ALL problems have been solved. We can all do as John suggests, and go and make a cup of tea.
Oh no. Wait. Hang on a minute. "Created as many problems as they've solved," might be a more accurate description.
Proportional representation will mean we will never have a majority in parliament. Without a majority, the time taken to pass any kind of legislation will will soar. It will corrupt the efficiency of Parliament and it will corrupt the effectiveness of Parliament.
New Zealand moved from the Westminster FPP system to a Westminster proportional representation system. They've never had a majority government since then.
Legislation has slowed, but that was seen as a feature, not a drawback, of the MMP system. Legislation still gets passed, but it gets a lot more debate, more viewpoints are concidered. You just need 50% of MPs to pass - same as ever. It works for NZ, it works for Europe, why not the U.K & America?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
But it doesn't work for Europe. In Germany under the Weimar republic they had a proportional representation system. It was so inefficient and slow at passing legisation that the people got angry at the government. The Government couldn't make any swift decisions when they were needed like during the great german depression.
This angered the people so much they put Hitler into power because he promised to make it faster by getting rid of the proportional representative government.
Hitler's rise to power owed more to the fact that most of the people in Germany at the time voted for parties in favor of abolishing the government (the Nazis, with 18.3% of the vote, had the largest share of those).
The Weimar Republic fell not because it was too slow to pass legislation but because emergency powers granted to the Chancellor allowed actions to be taken WITHOUT passing the Reichstag. Bruning's government made poor decisions, yes, but the problem did not lie in PR.
@newmadison Germany currently operates under a PR system and all change is piecemeal. That's why the EU is ... "great" because we destroy the potential for national government so that supragovernment can do it for us all. Can you not see the slippery slope to a federal Europe? Or worse still, is that what you want?
Change is not always good, its always necessary in one form of another but change for the sake of it is dangerous
@Catholicism777, newmadison is completely right. and essentially, the second world war happened mainly because of the unsatisfactory results of the first world war on german's part (and the signing of the treaty of versailles) and the wall street crash in 1929. proportional representation may have exacerbated the situation, but that doesn't substantiate your claim that it therefore "doesn't work for europe".
Well even if you look today, in Germany, governments are formed through secret dealings within Parliament by politicians, not the voters. In Belgium, coalition governments simply can't do anything for the first few weeks of an election and coalitions keep collapsing, making passing difficult laws very very difficult.
Recently, the coalition government collapsed due to conflict over the issue of burkhas. In Israel, small, extremist and very unpopular parties are able to hold the sway of power as the main parties are in constant disagreement. Proportional representation may be the most democratic system, but also the most inefficient. Democracy isn't democracy if it doesn't work!
@Catholicism777 Is it? Look around at the dicatorships on the planet and think again. Corruption, violence and low morale is what you get in dictatorships, hardly very efficient.
@Catholicism777 Dictatorship is by definition non-democratic. What you probably mean is a presidential system with a lot of power to the presidential office. But even if there was no corruption, just having an efficient system doesn't mean anything. If the president/dictator is an idiot or pursuis bad intentions, there's almost nothing you can do to stop him and the country goes down the drain equally fast... Read some philosophists on the topic there have been interesting arguments about that.
Well yes true true. An "elected dictatorship" is just a term often used to describe the British democratic system.
Well that just isn't true. Efficiency does mean something. Efficiency means action can be taken swiftly at a time of crisis, efficiency means money saved to the tax payer as legislation doesn't need to be constantly pulled back and reviewed because so many fringes of society have to be taken into account that almost any peice of legislation simply cannot be passed.
Efficiency also means that bad leader can be quickly removed. Under a PR system, what's stopping a bad leader from simply moving around the board, finding new allies amongst the diverse sections of the political field?
FPTP does prevent such leaders from dragging a country down the wrong road because there are quick and efficient democratic elections.
People are often confused and annoyed about the slowness of our present electoral system. If you look at other nations, their elections take weeks, even months before a new government is installed!
@Catholicism777 kind of works in Germany now though doesn't it - biggest economy and all that. Contexts change. Probably be good for the UK right now.
Well no it doesn't work for Germany now. The fact that Germany is massive producing nation has nothing to do with PR. In fact, if you have noticed, Germany is undergoing problems with their PR system! Whether Merkel is going to stay Chancellor is up to squabbling politicians and not the people because PR never creates a strong elected mandate.
Oh please no one mention FPTP and Africa. Because if we did that, then we could link to all types of bad people who been allow into office and are stuck there.
@Catholicism777 This is among the most inaccurate theories about why Hitler came to powers that I ever read. You really should try to learn more about history.
And you need to take your head out of your arse and learn to be less arrogant.
So mr genius, you tell me how a Proportionately Represented Weimer government was so unpopular because germany wasn't used to an inefficient regime which was so slow it couldn't handle the economic crisis, allowing extremist parties to gain serious momentum, giving Hitler substantial support because people were attracted to 1 powerful leader because they witnessed such incredible inefficiency under PR?
When it comes to Electoral reform, it is evident that the Labour party are just as Conservative as the Tories.
The issue has become a mere talking point, or a way to swindle votes out of the electorate who are tired of the same old thing (as Labour did prior to the 1997 GE).
It's a shame that the same issues highlighted in the 1980's are still evident in the 21st century.
A bit of political instability is a good thing. Why the hell should governments have it easy? Countries with PR also tend to have higher election turnouts because voters feel like their votes mean more than under FPTP.
Yes well, I live in a country which has proportional representation an the only thing this results in is more political instability. No Thatcherite reforms in Belgium, in fact, the govenments here consist of at least 3 parties, with over 5 parties in opposition. The result: we can't even make a proper budget... (the least of this country's problems though). The low amount of LibDems is not the fault of the winner-takes-all system, but of the bias towards Labour.
this is so accurate...our voting system is crap, and you have to face that, becasue it doesn't give anyone a chance except for the two dominant parties which are quite secure in their places already.
I think the Conserveritives would gain perhaps three seats. Its a bit to confusing. I like our Electorial system in America. its Basied on population in a certain area rather then how much a canadate wins by.
Our system is flawed and stupid. It means a candidate doesn't have to win the popular vote.
Example: I live in Georgia. I wanted to vote for McCain. I didn't vote at all. McCain won Georgia, without my vote. Which means, in our system, my vote didn't matter. If we did away with Electoral system, my vote would help win the country, but instead, it would have had no effect whatsoever, because he won my state regardless of my vote.
its true that princible but the reason that was in place was because City areas always get higher votes. The southern States when they signed the decleration didn't want the more populated northern states controling the vote by shear population.
Also we do not have a constitutional right to vote it is given to each electoral canadate. Sometime 100-200 years ago it became popular for the electorial canadate to turn the vote over to its population. We just vote for which way He votes.
The electoral votes are given to a state based on its population. Each state gets 2 by default. Then a number of electoral votes equal to the number of Representative seats in the House are divided among all 50 states based on their population. So, using the electoral system means that the more populus states still control the vote. Pay attention at the next election. You'll notice there are 5 major states that the candidates are most concerned about winning.
Actually, the Southern states had higher populations when the Constitution was ratified (not the declaration) because they got to count their slaves as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of representation.
The problem, of course, is that now rural voters are running roughshod over city voters, and their votes count more than ours. Why can't they count equally?
Finally, we vote for specific -electors- John Q. Smith vs. James Q. Jones - who pledge in advance to vote for a candidate.
Yeah so that allows for people who do not win by the majority of votes (ie. preferred by the highest percentage of the population) to still win overall, which is a bit stupid isn't it? I am sure you remember a fellow named Bush?
This would not be a good system because the result might not favour your political affiliation? I think we are in great need of political reform. I won't say this system is the best by any means but I wouldn't discount it on the basis of expected outcome.
I think a major concern is having knowledgeable people have more weight in opinion than drones who vote for irrelevant reasons. People voting one way or another without any knowledge about the policy and platform really bring the system down.
Times like these I appreciate the fact I live in New Zealand, where we have Proportional representation hence being the most democratic english speacking country in the world. Do you no that the UK is almost considered a flawed democracy?Get with the times Britain, let the colonies show you real democracy!
However I would no advise a threshold, even if the national front in britain gained a seat no major party would ever consider going into coalition, it would be political suicide.
At the moment we live in a system of fear. Labour voters are told to vote Labour because otherwise the Tories will win, and vice versa. I'm sure many Labour supporters would vote SWP, Communist or Liberal if they had the choice, or Tory voters would vote UKIP etc if they didn't fear a Labour victory.
At the moment we're not living in a democracy, we have the lords who aren't elected, it costs £500 to run for a seat, you have no chance of winning, and you don't need a majority to win.
Well. who could actually win an outright majority?would be hard enough with 3 candidates at times, let alone the 4,5 or 6 it would be nice to see in every seat. the £500 deposit I think is a good safeguard against any nut job that just wants a bit of attention, all they need to do is win a small percent of the vote, and they get it back, I don't see how an elected house of lords would help demorcay over all, it would just be a clone of the commons, and people vote SWP? ya daft lad!
Everyone should have the right to stand for election regardless of wealth, £500 means only candidates who can afford can stand up for their democratic right. Surely to stop any 'nut job' they should replace the £500 with them needing to prove a certain percentage of local support with a petition or something similar.
I'm not saying we need an elected house of lords as a clone, but why should not elected people have the chance to decide laws?
We do live in a democracy which plays on fear, Labour ran a campaign a few years ago which stated 'vote lib dem get tory' and the tories have done similar. The first past the post system has created a system in which many people choose to vote against parties rather than for them.
The old socialist element of Labour now has no voice, so with a more democratic system the SWP would receive quite a boost, likewise parties like UKIP would receive a boost from old Tory supporters.
As for the Socialist element of Labour having no voice, I'm in the Labour party, we are a broad church of opinion, but united under a common endevour, I'm a socialist and proud. The SWP will never win a seat for a very simple reason, they are not a registerd political party, and are at best a glorified pressure group. though they do hijack other political groups to use as front organisations.
OK, clearly you have a good heart but are misguided, so pin your ears back and liste.
No candidate could take a constituency without good campaign backing, so the £500 would be up to a small group to raise, hardly a mountain to climb.
We do have elected people who decide laws, they are called the commons, the Lords are in practice a scrutiny body, hence the reason they cannot Veto legislation.
Under most systems, if not all, voting for a minor party will offer one of the bigger ones better odds
The British system is totally outdated, many moons ago when parties didn't really exist it was fine, as MPs acted as reps for their area but party systems ruin their structure. Sadly its doutbful PR will come in anytime soon, Labour and the Tories have nothing to really gain from it and I wouldn't put it past the Lib Dems to drop the idea if they ever got the votes to be in a position to do anything about it, ironically we'd need a hung parliament to see it through
The worst part about plurality district-based schemes is that minority voters in each district do not affect the makeup of the legislature at all. Parties will get zero representation from every district where they weren't #1, so voters who voted for the losing party aren't represented. Proportional representation is the only way to guarantee "one man, one vote," where EVERYBODY contributes to the makeup of the legislature.
Here in America, we ONLY have district schemes. This needs to change.
Isn't the idea of democracy that every vote counts as 1? I mean, not every vote counts as hopefully sumthing as long as your neighbour vote for the same party :P
that doesn't make any sence, does it rly work like that in america? I rly feel sorry for you, now I understand why Bush got elected... twice.
But if you think that the current government, or for that matter the last six governments, are good adverts for first-past-the-post, then it is no surprise that you are incapable of observing simple facts, as you plainly suffer from drooling imbecility to a harmfully large degree.
..and the communists, and the national front etc.. don't get me wrong I'm not totally against it because the swing from Labour to Conservative and back again isn't working that well. However PR would result in coalition governments which also do not work well, like a lot of european nations find. PR is more democratic but all systems are flawed.
Democracy in it's current implementation is flawed anyway, because basically means that 51% of the population rule over the other 49%. But nobody has yet come up with a better system.
Having a variety of parties in parliament might cause many problems, but I don't quite see how the complex views and beliefs of all voters can be represented by just 2 parties fighting for absolute majority.
The US Constitutional Republic system was far better...... well, atleast until the 2 parties colluded to pass laws etc to concentrate their power.
Even better than that would be no system at all. ie. Anarchism... but of course that is something that can only happen slowly and with a new enlightenment behind us.
Well I don't see the national front ever gaining enough support to cross a reasonable threshold. And if they did, they still wouldn't have enough seats to control the agenda. I think a possible solution to the problem of extremist parties holding up centrist coalitions would be to elect the PM on a separate, nationwide ballot, and to have fixed elections dates. That way, extremist parties couldn't use the threat of taking down government to monopolize the agenda.
It;s disgraceful and crazy that the Liberal party has suffered in Britain because of the stupid electoral system; if change doesn't happen then we're only ever going tyo end up with Labour or the Conservatives.
One of the most abhorrent arguments someone can make against socialists is comparing socialists who are concerned with fair national health care, education, and housing programs, and who respect democratic rule of law and democratic elections with Maoists and Stalinists. It's repulsive and it's an argument made when someone can't come up with logical arguments with socialism itself and who'd rather make excuses to be greedy. Now what happens when you take RELIGION to its logical conclusion?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's been proven countless times that socialism NEVER works. Can't think of single example that works in your favor. By the way... I love how you tied your hatred of Van Halen into a conversation about politics. That just makes so much sense in the context of this "debate." Yes! Let's throw some nonsensical garbage into a sentence and then proceed to talk about something completely beside the point!
You'll need to define the "socialism" that has "never worked". Sweden has had a form of socialism that has worked very nicely for over 80 years, and Sweden is one of the richest, healthiest and most politically stable societies on the planet. The US itself has a had a form of socialism since the "new deal", although this has been gradually eroded since the early '80's, it is nonetheless a form of socialism. So which specific kind do you object to?
I guess that depends on where you get your information. Didn't Sweden get rich by defaulting on massive loans from world lenders? And what about every other country where socialism has been tried and failed?
Let's not forget that it's hardly been a benevolent rule in Sweden either, with eugenics and forced sterilizations amongst its most well-known policies. Come on, you must have something better than "Sweden is a socialist paradise" up your sleeve.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In regards to my intellectual prowess I do believe you are at a loss. I'm currently enlisted in the U.S. Navy as a Nuclear Engineer. I highly doubt you have such weight associated with your title but I could be highly mistaken. I'm not the moron you accuse me of being in any sense of the word. I do know quite a bit about European History since I've taken the most rigorous courses in history for the International Baccalaureate program. Please tell me.... what are your qualifications?
Ah, how intelligent. Rather than actually address the question set, you do the political thing and circumvent the arguement in the vain hope that because you have qualifications, or rather another person doesn't have those qualifications, that makes you superior. Though I do admit your first arguement makes sense, it is truely repulsive when someone ignores the arguement and makes attempts to attack his opponents character when he cannot answer the question.
@OmarAlQaseer I wish more socialists respected democracy. Some I spoke to up here said if they won an election they wouldn't let non socialists stand for election. Some even support Cuba even though Cuba censors what the cubans can and cannot read. Its really straight forward, power to the people, not power to the state. Power the working class, IE: bugger off government and let the people run their futures in peace and harmony. Equality is nothing without total freedom from the state.
And you need to take your head out of your arse and learn to be less arrogant.
So mr genius, you tell me how a Proportionately Represented Weimer government was so unpopular because germany wasn't used to an inefficient regime which was so slow it couldn't handle the economic crisis, allowing extremist parties to gain serious momentum, giving Hitler substantial support because people were attracted to 1 powerful leader because they witnessed such incredible inefficiency under PR?
Why do people call socialists "the looney left"? We're not the ones who use a book finished almost two millenia ago as a guideline to 21st century government.
Does anybody? TheBbible hasn't been a source of government since the heyday of the catholic church, and if you're referring to Shari'a, you're several centuries off.
I was referring to conservatives who try to construct a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and women and overturn roe versus wade.
Ahhh..... but you are the ones who have murdered more people with atheistic communism then all the "religious" wars combined. Let's all go to China and eat tree bark because Mao Tse Tung took all the food! (or) Let's go to eastern Germany where you'll be shot on sight if you try to go to the west! (or) Let's go to Cuba where you will be tortured without mercy if you try to be capitalist! I just love skewed logic... don't you?!?
What do you mean "you're" as if socialists in Europe and Stalinists in Russia and Maoists in China have anything to do with each other. I think you're the one with the skewed logic, as you don't seem to know the difference between a Social Democrat and a national socialist, and I'm sure you're the kind of person who can't tell the difference between Stalin and Gorbachev, just because they both happen to speak Russia. How's that for skewed logic and the pseudosophic garbage of Mike Savage.
Forresten, Van Halen sucks. Not only are they arrogant but all the sing about are blondes and being rich. Their vocals make them sound like some third rate band that you'd throw beer bottles at in a bar.
The adoption of a preferential system would also eliminate the need for expensive and destabilising multiple ballots as we saw recently with the French Presidential elections. Saving 100's of millions of dollars in public resources and funds.
Party list systems should be avoided. With the adoption of a preferential ballot system there is no need for artificial quota thresholds or disproportionate allocation of seats. Votes for unsuccessful minor candidates are redistributed according to the voters choice in order of their nominated preference to decide who will represent them.
Local based electorates each return nine members of parliament elected on a 10% quota by a system of preferential proportional ballot is by far a more democratic and workable alternative.
That's describing the Single Transferable Vote system. It's a good system, but I don't think it's the best one. The major feature is that, you're right, it doesn't require party lists.
On the other hand, it creates 10% wasted votes by design (compared to around 4-5% for proportional systems), it can lead to inter-party struggle, (and an effective, disciplined opposition is more powerful than a fractured government - unfair to the majority of voters) and is much more complex for the voter.
Singe Transferable voting with Meeks or the Wright System as the method of counting the vote produces the fairest and most democratic outcome. statistics with a nine member electorate (10% quote) 97.5% of the electorate are represented by someone of the voters choice. Yes there is a small percentage that form what's referred to as the wasted quota under teh droop Quota system.
Democracy is a collectivist scam.
god0fgod 1 month ago
Don't you meddle with FPTP.
Fleshious 2 months ago
@Fleshious FPTP, May 2010: Lib Dems with 23% of the vote get 8% of the seats. Labour with 29% of the vote get 39% of the seats.
And we call ourselves a democracy?! It's a joke!
MrAJR76 3 weeks ago
Israel is total PR country, but that simply means interest-group parties have more power. Individual politicians are never elected or defeated.
TacticusPrime 3 months ago
John Cleese is awesome.
freedomfighterguy1 3 months ago
here's the answer Britain:
1: Make each seat roughly equal in population
2. Change the boundaries between elections
2: Introduce a form of preferential voting (like instant-runoff voting)
bigswano 4 months ago
@bigswano thats too simple for them
irishgodfatherchris 2 months ago
Proportional Representation is a great system. We have it in New Zealand. There was once a British conservative MP who said "We don't want proportional representation... just look at the nightmare in New Zealand."
What? Being the least corrupt country in the world? Yes I imagine Tories would be terrified of less corruption...
alexxxnewzealand 4 months ago 12
wtf, the english have such a wierd system... just a unfair pro-conservative system kinda wierd..
larsdalen 7 months ago
@larsdalen actually the first past the post system favours the Labour party more. They need about 35% of the vote to gain a majority the Conservatives need at least 40% with the current constituency boundaries. The big cities esp in the north are more highly populated so have more constituencies and are mostly Labour. The south is more rural, lower populated and so has fewer constituencies but are mainly Conservative.
madabbafan 7 months ago
@madabbafan Thats because labour have been Gerrymandering the constituency lines ever since Thather/Major was out of power to stop a good governement
Basically Labour were thinking if the Tories did a good thing in the past they might do a good thing in the future
eddieoxford 7 months ago
Is John Cleese a member of the Liberal Democrats?
paolocabling 8 months ago
Comment removed
frostyuk2007 8 months ago
@paolocabling yes he is, I'm surprised he hasn't run as a candidate yet
irishgodfatherchris 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW ABOUT WE DO SOMETHING REALLY BRAVE...
& STAND UP TO THE ISRAEL/AMERICA PACT OVER PALESTINE!
Palestinians have to live on only 15% of regular supplies DUE TO THE ILLEGAL ISRAELI BLAOCKADE WHICH HAS STOOD FOR DECADES. Or are we just another U.S. lap dog state now?
LOOK AT MY CHANNEL FOR ALL THE INFO
(click my screen name)
BlackRoof 9 months ago
uummmmmm...........what?
terminatorisawsome 10 months ago
We hit it off so well after another visit busizz4me.info
yamunaperara 11 months ago
Most of your objections are because they aren't doing fine for economic reasons, not political.
cyclingzealot 11 months ago
I think that anyone who proposes to put their name foreward for election to Public Office should first have to take and pass the "I`m not a Theiving Bastard" Test !
valarmanwe 1 year ago
This has beeeeeeen so helpful for my exam!!!
Oldbluesock 1 year ago
Israel has proportional representation.
streamingmadly 1 year ago
@streamingmadly So does Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland. They all have proportional representation and they are doing fine.
cyclingzealot 11 months ago
@cyclingzealot I didn't know that. Israeli politics is screwed up beyond belief. When I wrote that Israel has proportional representation I meant in the same way I would have if I'd wrote that Haiti has cholera. Or that America has a two-party system.
streamingmadly 11 months ago
@cyclingzealot New Zealand is doing fine? The running joke is "what's the capital of New Zealand?" Answer "About $10.50". I notice you cunningly left out the debacle preferential and proportional voting is in the Australia senate! Iceland is doing fine? Germany is doing fine? What planet are you from? Next you will tell us that Greece is doing fine!
verziehen 11 months ago
@verziehen then how should we elect our Senate then if you don't like Proportional Representation
irishgodfatherchris 8 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris Keating called them unrepresentative swill. Senators are supposed to represent States rights, hence equal number of senators from each state (NT & ACT differ). Independents, Democrats, Greens have made a farce of it. Why have a senate or state upper houses at all? Queensland hasn't since 1922. Are we that immature as a nation that we are scared to elect one assembly and let them govern? In that case, perhaps we need a Fuhrer & Gauleiters etc Senators are hindering parasites.
verziehen 8 months ago
@verziehen the politics of 1922 are completely different to the politics of 2011, if Queensland had a choice I'm sure they would re-instate the upper house, they would just make it very powerless, here is Victoria the Legislative Council, over the last 150 years it has been changed to the point where it is almost ceremonial, but we won't remove it because it gives Ballieu too much power, the upper house exists the keep the lower house in check.
irishgodfatherchris 8 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris So it gives Ballieu too much power, thats odd I thought he was elected to have power, just like Brumby was. The upper house exists to keep the lower house in check. "Check" must be a new word for "hinder". Ask anyone you know that's not a party member, to name three upper house reps, while you are at at it ask them to name the senator that represents them and their opposition. Costly, time wasting, hindering, parasites. All of them. If we elect a government LET THEM GOVERN!
verziehen 8 months ago
@streamingmadly they have Party-list Proportional representation
irishgodfatherchris 10 months ago
In my opinion Britain should have a mix system.
Deeply Urban Areas like London should be fully Proportional representation, semi-urban areas which are not entirely Urbanized but are a great deal urbanized should have a mix system, and strictly rural areas should have single member districts.
I believe this is the most fair and most reasonable.
PR doesn't work so well in rural areas, because it is hard to organize due to lack of people. SMD is extremely unfair for urban areas. Best of both.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
You can go for a mix system like Germany has.
And please don't bring up Italy or Israel to speak badly about Proportional representation. Israel's mess concerns its relationship with Palestine, not its Knesset. Italy's mess deals with the fact that Italian people don't speak the same language other than Italian, which is an artificial language like Esperanto. There was no Italian language spoken more than a hundred years ago.
So as you can see Regional Problem and National Problem.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin Italian is actually 700 years old, Dante invented it
weckar 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin The problem with Germanys system is its all based on parties, not individuals. Advocates for STV or Cumulative or Instant run off (or a mix of those) want the focus to stay on individuals.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
I am sorry, but if you based population in individual, you end up with just individual representation of the people elected rather than the people who elected them.
A senate is a place for individual representation, not... the lower house. You get what I am saying?
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin Well, then you don't understand the system of STV that the video is promoting. The Single Transferable Vote is a multi member version of Instant Run Off (aka Ranked Choice Voting) Voting that places an emphasis on the individual members and not parties. Political parties are not required in STV, proof Cambridge which uses STV and has non partisan elections by law.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin Instant run off voting IS STV, just for single members. Ireland, Australia and many cities and one state in the US use IRV, and its just single member STV
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin Germany however uses a mixed member PR system that puts all emphasis on parties. Parties rule the country, not individuals.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin New Zealand uses a similar system, and look at the emphasis there. Leaving your party after youre elected is in fact an offense and voids your seat.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
You made four comments to respond to just one, don't you think you are over doing it.
"Leaving your party after you're elected is in fact an offense and voids your seat."
Who cares. If you want to be party independent, get elected in the Senate, which under my system would be independent."
The thing is you are taking this under the incentive the politician, but if a Politician wanted to run on his own turf, he should just be a Senator.
I mean come on, you need a middle route Lower House.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin "You made four comments to respond to just one, don't you think you are over doing it."
Nope. Blame the amount of text YouTube allows in one post on that.
"Who cares. If you want to be party independent, get elected in the Senate, which under my system would be independent."
Um, real commitment to democracy there. Why shouldn't a representative (the Senate is a representative body isnt it?) be independent? I dont want any coercion into having to choose some party.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin "The thing is you are taking this under the incentive the politician, but if a Politician wanted to run on his own turf, he should just be a Senator."
Because there's no parties in the Senate..? It's not partisan?
What the hell are you talking about? Neither the house of representatives or senate is designed to accommodate political parties, it's just they have a stranglehold on it. I think you need to take a civics class.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin "I mean come on, you need a middle route Lower House."
The US "lower house" wouldn't work well with a german system at all, it's designed as I said to elect individuals, even if it was multi-member. Look at Vermont and New Hampshire for examples. You really do need to finish high school.
Party loyalty is stupid.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
The guy from Monthy Python and James Bond supports PR? Awesome.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio Ahum.... and Pluto Nash....
weckar 1 year ago
@weckar That terrible movie with Eddie Murphy?
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio That's the one!
weckar 1 year ago
@weckar Well, you can't always be in good ones :p
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
PR is much better than AV and for that reason, I will be voting no to AV as I see it as a step backwards and it would create more Hung Parliaments which I really don't like/agree with :)
WillismoEmpire 1 year ago
Our system of representation works ok.
The problem that caused Obama to be elected, which is an economic disaster, is the media and educations systems are crawling with flaming liberals, like Cleese.
Fortunately, or election system does work, and we are about to purge some liberals.
tnekkc 1 year ago
I explained the quantization error of USA electoral college to my social studies class in 1963 when I was 12.
No one understood it, not even the teacher.
As much as I hate Cleese's politics, he is a better presenter of this topic than I was at age 12.
tnekkc 1 year ago
Hitler was a liberal.
He got into power with a pro animal right, pro gay, pro redistribution of wealth to the little guy, socialized medicine, gun control, and increasing the size of government for social programs.
He went on to do the final solution, which like Affirmative Action, was a gov remedy for past exploitation of one race by another.
Most in media and education are liberals, so don't expect them to emphasize that Hitler was a liberal.
tnekkc 1 year ago
@tnekkc
Does it hurt to be so dumb?
AVKnecht 1 year ago
@AVKnecht
My guess is that I understand sampling error, quantization error, Nyquist criterion, confidence interval, and seat allocation error, as well or better than you.
tnekkc 1 year ago
@tnekkc
I'm not talking about the video but about your Hitler-liberal bullshit. In fact the gun-laws in Germany were liberalized (you now like in the non-FOX meaning of that word). Socialised medicine wasn't on the agenda, since Germany had that since the 1890 (from that die-hard communist Bismark, aye?). That pro-gay statement is so incredible stupid I don't know what to say.
AVKnecht 1 year ago
@AVKnecht
Hitler used gays to gain power, and then turned on them, like Obama used everyone to gain power and then turned on them.
Hitler did not institute gun constrol in Germany, they already had it. He took advantage by suspending elections.
You cannot suspend elections unless gun control has been enforced.
Hitler did institute gun control in the territories he conquered.
Obama is like Hitler without talent.
tnekkc 1 year ago
@tnekkc
He did not use gays. Some SA-men happened to be gay in their private lifes.
Of course you can suspend elections even if everybody has a gun. And Hitler later on allowed every German to buy guns.
In Saddams Hussein's Iraq every man was allowed to own a Kalashnikow and the ammunition to defend his family and himself. Still no elections and a harsh dictatorship.
And that you insitute gun control in a conquered territory with hostiles lurking to kill you everywhere, is kinda...obvious?
AVKnecht 1 year ago
@AVKnecht
You need to read more about the brown shirts, their leadership structure, and how Hitler used them to gain power.
Then when Hitler took power, the first day, the only thing he did was animal rights.
When Obama took power, they only thing he did the first day was alter the white house web site on the topic of gays.
tnekkc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cleese is an inbred retard! Benny Hill considered funnier than Monty Python by two TV stations (WOR amnd WLVI)!
Bestmanme08 1 year ago
Gee, do you think 3rd party votes are wasted in a winner take all election?
Da ya think?
tnekkc 1 year ago
I still can't understand why anyone doesn't want PR.
AlexThomson1000 1 year ago
@AlexThomson1000
Can't or don't want to?
Catholicism777 1 year ago
wahey. this counts as politics revision (:
ImYourSuperhero01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
About a thousand protesters demanding electoral reform have gathered outside the building where senior Liberal Democrats were meeting in Westminster.
The demonstrators were from groups seeking proportional representation.
The Lib Dems were discussing a possible collaboration with the Tories who FAILED to secure a majority at the general election. Will nick sell out to the Tories and betray the people who voted for him.
TheNightnurse67 1 year ago
Lab= 258 Lib Dem= 57 SNP= 6 PC=3 SDLP=3 OK? 258+57+6+3+3= 327
Jadabh3 1 year ago
With PR even the 1983 election would have been hung.
ajuk1 1 year ago
The Liberals are a very very old political party (we all know that) and yet they don't support PR because its "fair" they support it because it suits them to do so. They stand a better chance.
For example the argument that votes are not wasted with PR is nonsense. Whilst in a very functional sense they are all USED at the same time they are ALL wasted! Because you can't show your distaste for a party with PR as its hard to kick em out and policies mean "nowt" because its a coalition!
caversmill 1 year ago
Maybe P.R. doesnt work but the government is deliberately manipulating constituency boundaries to lessen the power of opposition votes.
Major labour voting areas have the edges chopped off to supply votes to more marginal areas and the opposite is done to areas with high opposition support.
01gaunte 1 year ago
The effect first past the post would be vastly reduced by having the boundaries set by an independent commission. It completely undermines the democracy, if the party that is in power can set how valuable votes are in different regions.
This is common practice, which is how labour and tories have stayed in power since 1922!
01gaunte 1 year ago
still better than winner take all.
kungfuwookie 1 year ago 2
Wish we had proportional voting here. It would be a great way to get some actual debates going as opposed to the special interest circlejerk we have right now.
mentalrectangle 1 year ago
Hopfully if a hung parliment happens after the 2010 GE proponate repsentation will happen seeing thats one of the current key issues
the1001thing 1 year ago
i want a hung Pmt with vince cable as Chancellor of the Exchequer
Cena60793 1 year ago 5
@Cena60793 heh, hes doing a 'great' job right now as business secretary... :/
IamTheiPhone 1 year ago
@IamTheiPhone well he is an economist by nature, and worked a top job as a BP economist.
He's got experience, unlike gideon "shitforbrains" osbourne who has no idea of economics
Cena60793 1 year ago
@Cena60793 This may be true, but he supported the University fees uncapping and therefore my opinion of him has plummeted.
IamTheiPhone 1 year ago
@mentalrectangle debates are great but solutions are better my friend. I agree debate would flourish with PR but solutions would be diluted to suit all needs. Problem is there is no catch all solution to ANYTHING which means solving anything is pretty much impossible. Majoritarian (pural) democracy works it is old, tried and tested. PR is new, already showing faults and is a bad system
caversmill 1 year ago
@caversmill It's unrealistic to expect a newer, better system to be flawless. As long as it is better than the status quo, we should strive for it. When I look at political discourse and the policies of european countries with PR and compare it to the mess that the UK and US systems have, it looks very preferable.
mentalrectangle 1 year ago
The problem with proportional representation is that it forces people to vote for parties, rather than candidates, and thus gives even more power ot party leaders. If you truly want a deomcratic system, you should abolish the office of Prime Minister and the cabinet made up of MPs, and replace them with an executive elected nationally by the people. And abolish all official recognition of parties. Candidates should be individuals, not slaves of some party.
kittyprydekissme 2 years ago
However true things never work when it comes down to the line were politics and life meet, take the theory of communism, in its true form it has proven to be a real failure, same with true capitalism, as would true democracy which would require every citizen to vote on every law ect ect. Without a head a government cannot really lead and can you imagine hold long it would take some 646 people each with individual opinions to come to agree on anything? Parties have flaws but they create an order
Pizza23333 2 years ago
i totally agree with this there should be a close match between votes cast to seat representation.
youknowimright1 2 years ago
"Without a majority, the time taken to pass any kind of legislation will soar."
Hehe..If pace is the only criterion, an unelected dictator must be the ultimate solution? But we've had on average x2 pieces of legislation EVERY DAY since 'New Labour' came to power 13 years ago, and now ALL problems have been solved. We can all do as John suggests, and go and make a cup of tea.
Oh no. Wait. Hang on a minute. "Created as many problems as they've solved," might be a more accurate description.
Tj930 2 years ago
Proportional representation will mean we will never have a majority in parliament. Without a majority, the time taken to pass any kind of legislation will will soar. It will corrupt the efficiency of Parliament and it will corrupt the effectiveness of Parliament.
Catholicism777 2 years ago
This is true! But it's not a bad thing.
New Zealand moved from the Westminster FPP system to a Westminster proportional representation system. They've never had a majority government since then.
Legislation has slowed, but that was seen as a feature, not a drawback, of the MMP system. Legislation still gets passed, but it gets a lot more debate, more viewpoints are concidered. You just need 50% of MPs to pass - same as ever. It works for NZ, it works for Europe, why not the U.K & America?
brianboyko 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But it doesn't work for Europe. In Germany under the Weimar republic they had a proportional representation system. It was so inefficient and slow at passing legisation that the people got angry at the government. The Government couldn't make any swift decisions when they were needed like during the great german depression.
This angered the people so much they put Hitler into power because he promised to make it faster by getting rid of the proportional representative government.
Catholicism777 2 years ago
Hitler's rise to power owed more to the fact that most of the people in Germany at the time voted for parties in favor of abolishing the government (the Nazis, with 18.3% of the vote, had the largest share of those).
The Weimar Republic fell not because it was too slow to pass legislation but because emergency powers granted to the Chancellor allowed actions to be taken WITHOUT passing the Reichstag. Bruning's government made poor decisions, yes, but the problem did not lie in PR.
newmadison 2 years ago 29
Yes but Hitler was put as chancellor because Hindenburg new he would speed things up. The German Parliament was extremely slow and inefficient.
There was also very strong public opinion against the PR system becuase they believed it made Germany weak. In many ways it did.
Catholicism777 2 years ago
@newmadison Article 48 granted emergency powers to the President. The Enabling Act was passed in 1934.
Lazyguy22 1 year ago
@newmadison Germany currently operates under a PR system and all change is piecemeal. That's why the EU is ... "great" because we destroy the potential for national government so that supragovernment can do it for us all. Can you not see the slippery slope to a federal Europe? Or worse still, is that what you want?
Change is not always good, its always necessary in one form of another but change for the sake of it is dangerous
caversmill 1 year ago
And dont forget the Great Depression, and the Treaty of Versailles!
StrayGator 1 year ago
@Catholicism777, newmadison is completely right. and essentially, the second world war happened mainly because of the unsatisfactory results of the first world war on german's part (and the signing of the treaty of versailles) and the wall street crash in 1929. proportional representation may have exacerbated the situation, but that doesn't substantiate your claim that it therefore "doesn't work for europe".
iloveken222 1 year ago
*germany's
iloveken222 1 year ago
@iloveken222
Well even if you look today, in Germany, governments are formed through secret dealings within Parliament by politicians, not the voters. In Belgium, coalition governments simply can't do anything for the first few weeks of an election and coalitions keep collapsing, making passing difficult laws very very difficult.
Catholicism777 1 year ago
Recently, the coalition government collapsed due to conflict over the issue of burkhas. In Israel, small, extremist and very unpopular parties are able to hold the sway of power as the main parties are in constant disagreement. Proportional representation may be the most democratic system, but also the most inefficient. Democracy isn't democracy if it doesn't work!
Catholicism777 1 year ago
@Catholicism777
Irrelevant. You could use the same argument to say that a dictatorship is the best system.
gamesfella 1 year ago
@gamesfella
Well a dictatorship is the most efficient system. So a democratically elected dictator is thus the most effective and efficient democratic system.
Catholicism777 1 year ago
@Catholicism777 Is it? Look around at the dicatorships on the planet and think again. Corruption, violence and low morale is what you get in dictatorships, hardly very efficient.
zoli11 1 year ago
@zoli11
Which is why I do not subscribe to the idea of fascist dictatorship. But an efficient democratic one.
Catholicism777 1 year ago
@Catholicism777 Dictatorship is by definition non-democratic. What you probably mean is a presidential system with a lot of power to the presidential office. But even if there was no corruption, just having an efficient system doesn't mean anything. If the president/dictator is an idiot or pursuis bad intentions, there's almost nothing you can do to stop him and the country goes down the drain equally fast... Read some philosophists on the topic there have been interesting arguments about that.
zoli11 1 year ago
Well yes true true. An "elected dictatorship" is just a term often used to describe the British democratic system.
Well that just isn't true. Efficiency does mean something. Efficiency means action can be taken swiftly at a time of crisis, efficiency means money saved to the tax payer as legislation doesn't need to be constantly pulled back and reviewed because so many fringes of society have to be taken into account that almost any peice of legislation simply cannot be passed.
Catholicism777 1 year ago
Efficiency also means that bad leader can be quickly removed. Under a PR system, what's stopping a bad leader from simply moving around the board, finding new allies amongst the diverse sections of the political field?
FPTP does prevent such leaders from dragging a country down the wrong road because there are quick and efficient democratic elections.
Catholicism777 1 year ago
People are often confused and annoyed about the slowness of our present electoral system. If you look at other nations, their elections take weeks, even months before a new government is installed!
Catholicism777 1 year ago
@Catholicism777 kind of works in Germany now though doesn't it - biggest economy and all that. Contexts change. Probably be good for the UK right now.
roetestrassefraktion 1 year ago 2
@roetestrassefraktion
Well no it doesn't work for Germany now. The fact that Germany is massive producing nation has nothing to do with PR. In fact, if you have noticed, Germany is undergoing problems with their PR system! Whether Merkel is going to stay Chancellor is up to squabbling politicians and not the people because PR never creates a strong elected mandate.
Catholicism777 1 year ago
@Catholicism777
Oh please no one mention FPTP and Africa. Because if we did that, then we could link to all types of bad people who been allow into office and are stuck there.
Titanbrad84 1 year ago
@Catholicism777 This is among the most inaccurate theories about why Hitler came to powers that I ever read. You really should try to learn more about history.
Christuserloeser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And you need to take your head out of your arse and learn to be less arrogant.
So mr genius, you tell me how a Proportionately Represented Weimer government was so unpopular because germany wasn't used to an inefficient regime which was so slow it couldn't handle the economic crisis, allowing extremist parties to gain serious momentum, giving Hitler substantial support because people were attracted to 1 powerful leader because they witnessed such incredible inefficiency under PR?
Catholicism777 1 year ago
When it comes to Electoral reform, it is evident that the Labour party are just as Conservative as the Tories.
The issue has become a mere talking point, or a way to swindle votes out of the electorate who are tired of the same old thing (as Labour did prior to the 1997 GE).
It's a shame that the same issues highlighted in the 1980's are still evident in the 21st century.
Absurd.
dynamicflashy 2 years ago
A bit of political instability is a good thing. Why the hell should governments have it easy? Countries with PR also tend to have higher election turnouts because voters feel like their votes mean more than under FPTP.
comradegonzo 2 years ago 3
Yes well, I live in a country which has proportional representation an the only thing this results in is more political instability. No Thatcherite reforms in Belgium, in fact, the govenments here consist of at least 3 parties, with over 5 parties in opposition. The result: we can't even make a proper budget... (the least of this country's problems though). The low amount of LibDems is not the fault of the winner-takes-all system, but of the bias towards Labour.
autofreak7 2 years ago
this is so accurate...our voting system is crap, and you have to face that, becasue it doesn't give anyone a chance except for the two dominant parties which are quite secure in their places already.
musiksoul 2 years ago 4
I think the Conserveritives would gain perhaps three seats. Its a bit to confusing. I like our Electorial system in America. its Basied on population in a certain area rather then how much a canadate wins by.
DasGreenCow 2 years ago
Our system is flawed and stupid. It means a candidate doesn't have to win the popular vote.
Example: I live in Georgia. I wanted to vote for McCain. I didn't vote at all. McCain won Georgia, without my vote. Which means, in our system, my vote didn't matter. If we did away with Electoral system, my vote would help win the country, but instead, it would have had no effect whatsoever, because he won my state regardless of my vote.
DarthDrax 2 years ago
DarthDrax:
its true that princible but the reason that was in place was because City areas always get higher votes. The southern States when they signed the decleration didn't want the more populated northern states controling the vote by shear population.
Also we do not have a constitutional right to vote it is given to each electoral canadate. Sometime 100-200 years ago it became popular for the electorial canadate to turn the vote over to its population. We just vote for which way He votes.
DasGreenCow 2 years ago
The electoral votes are given to a state based on its population. Each state gets 2 by default. Then a number of electoral votes equal to the number of Representative seats in the House are divided among all 50 states based on their population. So, using the electoral system means that the more populus states still control the vote. Pay attention at the next election. You'll notice there are 5 major states that the candidates are most concerned about winning.
DarthDrax 2 years ago
Actually, the Southern states had higher populations when the Constitution was ratified (not the declaration) because they got to count their slaves as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of representation.
The problem, of course, is that now rural voters are running roughshod over city voters, and their votes count more than ours. Why can't they count equally?
Finally, we vote for specific -electors- John Q. Smith vs. James Q. Jones - who pledge in advance to vote for a candidate.
brianboyko 2 years ago
Yeah so that allows for people who do not win by the majority of votes (ie. preferred by the highest percentage of the population) to still win overall, which is a bit stupid isn't it? I am sure you remember a fellow named Bush?
Funkingout 2 years ago
Comment removed
893160007 2 years ago
This would not be a good system because the result might not favour your political affiliation? I think we are in great need of political reform. I won't say this system is the best by any means but I wouldn't discount it on the basis of expected outcome.
I think a major concern is having knowledgeable people have more weight in opinion than drones who vote for irrelevant reasons. People voting one way or another without any knowledge about the policy and platform really bring the system down.
masamuneMK5 2 years ago
Times like these I appreciate the fact I live in New Zealand, where we have Proportional representation hence being the most democratic english speacking country in the world. Do you no that the UK is almost considered a flawed democracy?Get with the times Britain, let the colonies show you real democracy!
However I would no advise a threshold, even if the national front in britain gained a seat no major party would ever consider going into coalition, it would be political suicide.
trademestuff 2 years ago 2
it is a disgrace that every vote doesnt count, we need PR to produce a truly competitive and dynamic political spectrum, free of complaceny
NIRL91 2 years ago
At the moment we live in a system of fear. Labour voters are told to vote Labour because otherwise the Tories will win, and vice versa. I'm sure many Labour supporters would vote SWP, Communist or Liberal if they had the choice, or Tory voters would vote UKIP etc if they didn't fear a Labour victory.
At the moment we're not living in a democracy, we have the lords who aren't elected, it costs £500 to run for a seat, you have no chance of winning, and you don't need a majority to win.
stdomingoesfc 2 years ago
Well. who could actually win an outright majority?would be hard enough with 3 candidates at times, let alone the 4,5 or 6 it would be nice to see in every seat. the £500 deposit I think is a good safeguard against any nut job that just wants a bit of attention, all they need to do is win a small percent of the vote, and they get it back, I don't see how an elected house of lords would help demorcay over all, it would just be a clone of the commons, and people vote SWP? ya daft lad!
Matpat112 2 years ago
Everyone should have the right to stand for election regardless of wealth, £500 means only candidates who can afford can stand up for their democratic right. Surely to stop any 'nut job' they should replace the £500 with them needing to prove a certain percentage of local support with a petition or something similar.
I'm not saying we need an elected house of lords as a clone, but why should not elected people have the chance to decide laws?
stdomingoesfc 2 years ago
We do live in a democracy which plays on fear, Labour ran a campaign a few years ago which stated 'vote lib dem get tory' and the tories have done similar. The first past the post system has created a system in which many people choose to vote against parties rather than for them.
The old socialist element of Labour now has no voice, so with a more democratic system the SWP would receive quite a boost, likewise parties like UKIP would receive a boost from old Tory supporters.
stdomingoesfc 2 years ago
As for the Socialist element of Labour having no voice, I'm in the Labour party, we are a broad church of opinion, but united under a common endevour, I'm a socialist and proud. The SWP will never win a seat for a very simple reason, they are not a registerd political party, and are at best a glorified pressure group. though they do hijack other political groups to use as front organisations.
Matpat112 2 years ago
OK, clearly you have a good heart but are misguided, so pin your ears back and liste.
No candidate could take a constituency without good campaign backing, so the £500 would be up to a small group to raise, hardly a mountain to climb.
We do have elected people who decide laws, they are called the commons, the Lords are in practice a scrutiny body, hence the reason they cannot Veto legislation.
Under most systems, if not all, voting for a minor party will offer one of the bigger ones better odds
Matpat112 2 years ago
Well, it's a good thing everyone stuck to that and didn't vote for something stupid like BNP-
-o wait.
b0bd0le101 2 years ago
The British system is totally outdated, many moons ago when parties didn't really exist it was fine, as MPs acted as reps for their area but party systems ruin their structure. Sadly its doutbful PR will come in anytime soon, Labour and the Tories have nothing to really gain from it and I wouldn't put it past the Lib Dems to drop the idea if they ever got the votes to be in a position to do anything about it, ironically we'd need a hung parliament to see it through
JapeUK 2 years ago
The worst part about plurality district-based schemes is that minority voters in each district do not affect the makeup of the legislature at all. Parties will get zero representation from every district where they weren't #1, so voters who voted for the losing party aren't represented. Proportional representation is the only way to guarantee "one man, one vote," where EVERYBODY contributes to the makeup of the legislature.
Here in America, we ONLY have district schemes. This needs to change.
profstampede 2 years ago 6
Isn't the idea of democracy that every vote counts as 1? I mean, not every vote counts as hopefully sumthing as long as your neighbour vote for the same party :P
that doesn't make any sence, does it rly work like that in america? I rly feel sorry for you, now I understand why Bush got elected... twice.
JoeyPsych 2 years ago
proportional representation is better because it answers the needs of the individuals, instead of grouping a whole town together as a single entity.
Ilikenuman 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
are there any LibDem MPs that don't spend every night on Hampstead Heath?
worcesterwombat 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The fact the LibDems are kept out is a very good advert for first-past-the-post; they're bunch of freakishly leftwing nutters
worcesterwombat 3 years ago
But your point is inherently anti-democratic, you have to admit.
adamdm87 3 years ago 6
Absolute drivel, of course.
But if you think that the current government, or for that matter the last six governments, are good adverts for first-past-the-post, then it is no surprise that you are incapable of observing simple facts, as you plainly suffer from drooling imbecility to a harmfully large degree.
24465766 3 years ago
how do you get 4 liberals on a chair?
worcesterwombat 3 years ago
Read the paper
They're not left wing, in fact they're tax proposals are freakishly right wing
Samcyrusxerxes 3 years ago 2
The great thing about proportional representation is you can have small parties (Libertarian, etc.) actually get seats in the house of commons.
norcofreerider604 3 years ago 3
..and the communists, and the national front etc.. don't get me wrong I'm not totally against it because the swing from Labour to Conservative and back again isn't working that well. However PR would result in coalition governments which also do not work well, like a lot of european nations find. PR is more democratic but all systems are flawed.
zebra55 2 years ago
Democracy in it's current implementation is flawed anyway, because basically means that 51% of the population rule over the other 49%. But nobody has yet come up with a better system.
Having a variety of parties in parliament might cause many problems, but I don't quite see how the complex views and beliefs of all voters can be represented by just 2 parties fighting for absolute majority.
Molo9000 2 years ago 2
The US Constitutional Republic system was far better...... well, atleast until the 2 parties colluded to pass laws etc to concentrate their power.
Even better than that would be no system at all. ie. Anarchism... but of course that is something that can only happen slowly and with a new enlightenment behind us.
RPFS2008 2 years ago
Well I don't see the national front ever gaining enough support to cross a reasonable threshold. And if they did, they still wouldn't have enough seats to control the agenda. I think a possible solution to the problem of extremist parties holding up centrist coalitions would be to elect the PM on a separate, nationwide ballot, and to have fixed elections dates. That way, extremist parties couldn't use the threat of taking down government to monopolize the agenda.
Watermark0n 2 years ago
It;s disgraceful and crazy that the Liberal party has suffered in Britain because of the stupid electoral system; if change doesn't happen then we're only ever going tyo end up with Labour or the Conservatives.
lelvish1 3 years ago 5
One of the most abhorrent arguments someone can make against socialists is comparing socialists who are concerned with fair national health care, education, and housing programs, and who respect democratic rule of law and democratic elections with Maoists and Stalinists. It's repulsive and it's an argument made when someone can't come up with logical arguments with socialism itself and who'd rather make excuses to be greedy. Now what happens when you take RELIGION to its logical conclusion?
OmarAlQaseer 3 years ago 20
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's been proven countless times that socialism NEVER works. Can't think of single example that works in your favor. By the way... I love how you tied your hatred of Van Halen into a conversation about politics. That just makes so much sense in the context of this "debate." Yes! Let's throw some nonsensical garbage into a sentence and then proceed to talk about something completely beside the point!
Maximus4200 3 years ago
You'll need to define the "socialism" that has "never worked". Sweden has had a form of socialism that has worked very nicely for over 80 years, and Sweden is one of the richest, healthiest and most politically stable societies on the planet. The US itself has a had a form of socialism since the "new deal", although this has been gradually eroded since the early '80's, it is nonetheless a form of socialism. So which specific kind do you object to?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago 8
I guess that depends on where you get your information. Didn't Sweden get rich by defaulting on massive loans from world lenders? And what about every other country where socialism has been tried and failed?
Let's not forget that it's hardly been a benevolent rule in Sweden either, with eugenics and forced sterilizations amongst its most well-known policies. Come on, you must have something better than "Sweden is a socialist paradise" up your sleeve.
forgetfulmuse 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In regards to my intellectual prowess I do believe you are at a loss. I'm currently enlisted in the U.S. Navy as a Nuclear Engineer. I highly doubt you have such weight associated with your title but I could be highly mistaken. I'm not the moron you accuse me of being in any sense of the word. I do know quite a bit about European History since I've taken the most rigorous courses in history for the International Baccalaureate program. Please tell me.... what are your qualifications?
Maximus4200 3 years ago
Ah, how intelligent. Rather than actually address the question set, you do the political thing and circumvent the arguement in the vain hope that because you have qualifications, or rather another person doesn't have those qualifications, that makes you superior. Though I do admit your first arguement makes sense, it is truely repulsive when someone ignores the arguement and makes attempts to attack his opponents character when he cannot answer the question.
Bmambl 3 years ago 11
@OmarAlQaseer I wish more socialists respected democracy. Some I spoke to up here said if they won an election they wouldn't let non socialists stand for election. Some even support Cuba even though Cuba censors what the cubans can and cannot read. Its really straight forward, power to the people, not power to the state. Power the working class, IE: bugger off government and let the people run their futures in peace and harmony. Equality is nothing without total freedom from the state.
Mikeofdundee1987 1 year ago
And you need to take your head out of your arse and learn to be less arrogant.
So mr genius, you tell me how a Proportionately Represented Weimer government was so unpopular because germany wasn't used to an inefficient regime which was so slow it couldn't handle the economic crisis, allowing extremist parties to gain serious momentum, giving Hitler substantial support because people were attracted to 1 powerful leader because they witnessed such incredible inefficiency under PR?
Catholicism777 1 year ago
@OmarAlQaseer
soz i sent that message to the wrong person
Catholicism777 1 year ago
Why do people call socialists "the looney left"? We're not the ones who use a book finished almost two millenia ago as a guideline to 21st century government.
OmarAlQaseer 3 years ago 6
The lousy Sun newspaper came up with the Looney Left term as a way of attacking socialists.
mononokehime316uk 3 years ago
Does anybody? TheBbible hasn't been a source of government since the heyday of the catholic church, and if you're referring to Shari'a, you're several centuries off.
somnolent49 3 years ago
I was referring to conservatives who try to construct a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and women and overturn roe versus wade.
OmarAlQaseer 3 years ago
Ahhh..... but you are the ones who have murdered more people with atheistic communism then all the "religious" wars combined. Let's all go to China and eat tree bark because Mao Tse Tung took all the food! (or) Let's go to eastern Germany where you'll be shot on sight if you try to go to the west! (or) Let's go to Cuba where you will be tortured without mercy if you try to be capitalist! I just love skewed logic... don't you?!?
Maximus4200 3 years ago
What do you mean "you're" as if socialists in Europe and Stalinists in Russia and Maoists in China have anything to do with each other. I think you're the one with the skewed logic, as you don't seem to know the difference between a Social Democrat and a national socialist, and I'm sure you're the kind of person who can't tell the difference between Stalin and Gorbachev, just because they both happen to speak Russia. How's that for skewed logic and the pseudosophic garbage of Mike Savage.
OmarAlQaseer 3 years ago 2
Forresten, Van Halen sucks. Not only are they arrogant but all the sing about are blondes and being rich. Their vocals make them sound like some third rate band that you'd throw beer bottles at in a bar.
OmarAlQaseer 3 years ago
Or let's go to Scandinavia, where the quality of life beats the living shit out of most other countries.
gthreek 3 years ago 5
The City of London, UK uses MMP?
Funny how Toronto, Canada has the same makeup of Looney Lefty Socialists, the same as the City of London, UK, without MMP.
gungasdindin 4 years ago
Since this video was made Scotland, Wales and the City of London all use MMP. Its time Canada joins the bulk of British voters in the 21st century.
lufc4cup 4 years ago
The bulk of British voters live in England but not in London.
HenryAyoola 3 years ago
Would be nice to tidy up the ending. Something like "Don't we supposedly live in a democracy"??
Christopher
Ottawa, Canada
chrisassad 4 years ago
Great upload.
machaeroguy 4 years ago
The adoption of a preferential system would also eliminate the need for expensive and destabilising multiple ballots as we saw recently with the French Presidential elections. Saving 100's of millions of dollars in public resources and funds.
Melbcity 4 years ago
Party list systems should be avoided. With the adoption of a preferential ballot system there is no need for artificial quota thresholds or disproportionate allocation of seats. Votes for unsuccessful minor candidates are redistributed according to the voters choice in order of their nominated preference to decide who will represent them.
Melbcity 4 years ago
Local based electorates each return nine members of parliament elected on a 10% quota by a system of preferential proportional ballot is by far a more democratic and workable alternative.
Melbcity 4 years ago
That's describing the Single Transferable Vote system. It's a good system, but I don't think it's the best one. The major feature is that, you're right, it doesn't require party lists.
On the other hand, it creates 10% wasted votes by design (compared to around 4-5% for proportional systems), it can lead to inter-party struggle, (and an effective, disciplined opposition is more powerful than a fractured government - unfair to the majority of voters) and is much more complex for the voter.
brianboyko 2 years ago
Singe Transferable voting with Meeks or the Wright System as the method of counting the vote produces the fairest and most democratic outcome. statistics with a nine member electorate (10% quote) 97.5% of the electorate are represented by someone of the voters choice. Yes there is a small percentage that form what's referred to as the wasted quota under teh droop Quota system.
Melbcity 2 years ago