It’s exactly the same. If it’s electoral collage or governer then it’s the whole state otherwise it’s smaller districts like in a UK general election and people are dissuaded from voting because their preferred candidate hasn’t a chance.
What about the performance of German coalition governments? Or some of the ones in Nordic countries?
Your post reads like stereotypical British FPTP propaganda, scaremongering about how coalition governments simply can’t function.
I use to be a fan of FPTP. It generally worked well in Britain for a long time, and even the coalition of 2010 was strong and there was a degree of compromise. The political situation right now though needs much more representation. The two party system doesn’t represent the people anymore, Brexit was a by-product of this.
Also, if the electoral college gives a voice to those in the mid-west etc, surely FPTP is taking a way a voice from those in safe seats. Only a low proportion of seats in the UK are actually contestable.
Edit: on the theme of the inauguration. I found Trump’s speech to be the most uninspiring speech possible. Compare and contrast that to the one of Obama of 2008. It’s pretty sad when the Chinese president makes a better case for trade than the US lol.
I don’t know how relevant continental comparisions are when we had our very own coalition to examine. The results of the election showed the electorate were clearly unsatisfied the coalition performance - you can’t really argue with that. I think certain systems work well for their respective countries. I think FPTP works for the UK.
I never said coalition governments simply can’t function never implied it either, I’m just saying the water gets alot murkier in terms of accountability when there isn’t consistency and consensus.
With Brexit in mind I just don’t see how any PR system comes to benefit the UK. It’s an issue which is does not give way to alot of consensus between parties
They’re completely relevant when you make this statement: “PR systems are undesirable because it prevents effective government.”
Unless you are willing to make a sweeping statement about coalitions based one solitary example.
So actually you totally did imply (say) that coalition governments can’t function.
In the context of the UK… it wasn’t a blanket statement on all coalition governments
Seems like backtracking to me but I’ll genuinely take your word for it.
You’re stretching it to say that this general election is proof of the electorate rejecting coalitions anyway imo. There are such a wide range of factors to consider when it comes to working out why people voted a certain way, due to the fact that there are millions of people taking part. It’s pretty reductive to say that the election result proves that the people don’t like coalition governments.
We never really had a coalition government, we had a Tory government with a couple of nods to Nick Clegg’s ego.
A proper coalition would have been a Tory/Labour partnership where they weren’t fighting about nonsense all the time and just got stuff done. I don’t agree with this notion invented by Corybn haters that you need a strong opposition because all a strong opposition does is use their energy to try and score points and criticise everything the government does, even if it’s something good. If the government cuts welfare and saves money, they’re ruining peoples lives. If the government spends more on welfare, they’re bankrupting the country.
Well the eventual result was hugely indicative of how the electorate felt about the performance of the coalition government especially seeing as the Conservatives stayed in power and secured a majority. I never said it was the result was the population rejection coalitions outright it was proof that there was a clear preference for decisive leadership.
Looking at Brexit too I’m not sure how successful a coalition government can deliver effective results dealing with one of the most contentious and divisive issues in British history
I’d say the coalition government worked out very well for what it was from 2010 and 2015.
A FPTP system lends itself to 2 major parties and since they are always contesting elections, things can turn hyper partisan. Politicians then try to score points against their rival party instead of focusing on the issues at hand or what they would actually believe in.
Also, sometimes these major parties because they are the only avenue to win, become too broad a church. They may have to compromise on some of their cornerstone policies.
In proportional systems, parties can still keep their base and enact policies for their base (in some cases the main reason for their existence) and compromise once in power.
You might not see mich dofference between those 2, but I feel that would promote more interparty cooperation, like how Tories and Lib Dems worked together from 2010-2015.
Well it’s a moot point because a coalition government won’t have to deliver effective results for Brexit because we don’t have a coalition, but I think that two parties working together, finding compromises and tempering each others worst traits could actually deliver a Brexit that appeased more of the population. Seeing as you just labelled Brexit one of the most contentious and divisive issues in British history. Rather than one one party exiting the EU very much on their terms, which is hardly going to alleviate the issues presented by one of the most contentious and divisive issues we’ve faced.
I think they could also find one that would be likely to serve the common person better than the likely Brexit the Tories will give us.
But that’s just my opinion.
The biggest issue with British politics at the moment is that it isn’t representative of the population at all.
FPTP leads to tactical voting and one or two parties having a vice-like grip on power. The fact that UKIP, Green Party and the Lib Dems literally got millions of votes but weren’t able to scrape together more than a few seats in parliament compared to the SNPs 52 seats that they got from 1 million votes is a disgrace and a farce.
In Denmark we have proportional representation, well, most of the system is proportional representation, it’s a little more complicated than that but for all intents and purposes - if you get 30% of the vote, you get 30% of the seats in Parliament.
This is great because it means that other parties than the main established parties (like Venstre and Socialdemokraterne) actually have a chance. We have 7 or 8 parties in Parliament at the moment, and the government is currently made up of a tri-party coalition. Governments in Denmark are almost ALWAYS coalitions because you have so many parties getting votes. Which is good because it leads to compromise.
There’s literally a valid, legitimate political party for everyone on the spectrum although the Christian party is more or less nonexistent and the Conservative party is dying a slow death although it is currently in the government as a minority partner. Hell, we’ve even got a party with socialist economic policies but rightist immigration policies called the Danish People’s Party.
It sounds confusing but it makes sense and it means we average 85% voter turnout at every election and referendum because people genuinely feel that their vote makes a difference and that they are being represented.
None of this regional, constituency voting bullshit where if you live in one area you’re forever doomed to vote Labour even if you want to vote Lib Dem or Greens because they’re the only ones who even provide the slightest resistance to the Tories etc.
Electoral reform would create revolutionary changes in British politics.
I’d post that Orson Welles slow clap gif, if I could be bothered to search for it.
Well this is a politics thread alot a moot points are going to be discussed - I don’t see any need to highlight that.
Where can you find compromise in the major decisions of something like Brexit? Seems like there’s strict hard and a soft camp. Where’s the middle ground when it comes to Immigration for example? or the single market? In a situation like this large sections of the population just won’t be satisfied regardless
The government having a clear policy and mentality toward Brexit is better for decision making and public confidence. 2020 will already be a massive indication of the government performance in handing the matter
How does that work for independents out of interest?
We don’t really do independents in Denmark, I can try and look it up for you but it’s so easy to start a political party that people tend to do that rather than run as independents if they’re upset with the current parties.
another good point.
PR means smaller parties have a chance of experiencing what it is like to be in power and in government, something that does not happen in Brtiain/US.
The Green Party in Europe compared to the Green party in UK/US is a lot more slick an operation and that is because they have faced the reality of government politics and have developed the pragmatism necessary.
That can only be good for all parties to develop themselves, no?
It was a mere observation, not a comment aimed specifically at you.
Of course there are compromises to be made and nuances to how Brexit is done, if it was as cut and dry as you are making it out to be then there wouldn’t be as much discussion and as many debates about how it’s done.
What will our relationship with the EU look like now we have left? Will it most resemble a full EU member, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Turkey or the WTO? Will we be a single market nember, just have access to it or neither of the above? Would tariffs be in place like the WTO has, tariffs but not on industrial goods like Turkey, reduced tariffs due to a free trade agreement like Canada or no tariffs at all like Switzerland, Norway and full EU members? Do we accept the free movement of people or not? Do we want to be in the customs union? Are we going to make EU budget contributions? If so, as much as a full member of the EU or Norway, or a lesser amount like Switzerland? Or not at all like Turkey. It’s not just a question of whether we make any budget contributions in years to come (post 2020 etc), but whether we make budget payments we are already committed to making in the next few years, that the EU have already factored into their own budget and spending.
You’re simplifying the issue, and I think that’s because you’re a bit of neoliberal Tory who doesn’t mind the idea of Mother Theresa turning our country into a tax haven for multinationals right on the doorstep of Europe.
I agree I have simplified the issue that because I don’t really really want to get into it too heavy. I don’t think the Brexit situation is simple problem to be solved, May’s performance so far isn’t the best example of decisive leadership and consistent policy on the issue. I don’t envy her position though
Nope not at all, I voted to remain and If I was in any kind of legislative power I’d be doing everything within my remit to overturn the result of the referendum. I think the result has created a terrible economic situation that firmly places the UK at a disadvantage. The situation with Nissan in the North East is something which I’ve always feared
But the decision is there and we have to deal with the realities of the situation, unfortunately it’s going to subsidies and tax breaks to incentivise business to invest in a UK that doesn’t enjoy the benefits of EU membership. That’s just me being realistic about the situation in a simple sense