djm4_lj | (no subject)

Entry tags:

no privacy

(no subject)

Last year, America elected its first black president. This year, Britain elected its first two BNP MEPs. Way to respond, my country.

I don't want to get up today. In London, Jonathan Fryer was only 8000 votes off being elected, too.

Edit: ...or so his Twitter said, but I guess in the small hours of the morning he miscounted, or mistakenly saw the margin to Labour. He'd actually have needed just under 80,000.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yes indeed. This is why I cannot embrace PR - wherever it applies it advantages the far Right.

Er, no. Particularly if you include, say, Thatcher in that category. And as the council elections show, you can get BNP winners with first past the post too.

The system picked for these elections (in England, Wales and Scotland) was chosen to increase the power of the parties (and give the Returning Officer an easy job) and not to be 'PR'.

If the votes had been level across the regions, in a first past the post election we'd have three Labour MEPs, six SNP and all the rest would be Tories. That certainly keeps out the BNP (and indeed UKIP) but cannot in any sense be said to reflect the wishes of the electorate.

Yes, I know the arguments thanks, I just dont agree. I would prefer the scenario of 3 Labour MEP's etc in any event and dont understand why anyone would prefer the present scenario.

It is a widely, though clearly not universally, held belief that the outcome of elections should reflect the wishes of the voters.

First past the post is spectacularly bad at this, delivering absolute power to parties with the support of a minority of the electorate, and reducing the number of people whose votes actually count to remarkably small levels.

I don't think I (or anyone else) is saying that the present scenario is 'good'. On the other hand, had we had the badly flawed voting system it used for General Elections, we would have been spared the excesses of both Thatcher and Blair, both of whom used their artificial majorities to push through things opposed by other parties.

I said I know the arguments. It is a pity you could not resist the opportunity to snark.

You said you didn't understand why people would prefer the present scenario. I suggest, admittedly with something that could be interpreted as a snark, that most people do for a very good reason.

I can understand some objections to fair voting systems. Self interest is the biggest one: many Tory and Labour MPs are happy to lose power at some elections in exchange for the chance to win absolute power at other elections. This is David Cameron's real objection, not the 'oh, you might get a BNP MP elected'.

But I do not understand why you prefer a system where your General Election vote is irrelevant and means you have - despite the wishes of a majority of your fellow constituents - an MP who has voted strongly against a transparent Parliament, strongly for introducing ID cards, very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals, strongly for introducing student top-up fees, very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws, very strongly for the Iraq war, very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war, and very strongly for replacing Trident.

It seems an excessively high price to reduce the chances of the BNP getting an MP.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only