British Politics

Debate about anything going on in the world.
Please remember everyone has their own opinion

Re: British Politics

Postby LMAO » Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:38 pm

UFGN wrote:
LMAO wrote:
UFGN wrote:
Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:
LMAO wrote:How do your party leadership elections work?

Is it like our closed primaries where you have to be registered for a certain party to be allowed to vote for your preferred candidate to represent the seat in question in an election (except in your case, to be party leader)? And if so, is it a winner-take-all system or some weird electoral vote system (where each district is allotted a specific number of votes that goes to the candidate with the greatest popular vote in that district, and in the end, all the districts are pooled together and the candidate with the most electoral votes wins) like in some of our primaries?

So like, if Starmer, for instance, gets a plurality (or a majority) of the popular vote, he's leader and that's done and dusted?


Each party has its own rules. Labour currently holds an election restricted to MPs and EMPs plus a few other entities that are key party players. The general public really has no say.


Members of the public can join the Labour party, and then they get a vote.

The Leader is always an MP, it would be unthinkable for them not to choose an MP as leader

This is a good summary of the process

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... t-hopefuls


Muchas gracias.

Is a poll tax not illegal in the UK? Because needing to pay in order to vote is unconstitutional here (even though some states/polling stations violate the 24th Amendment).



The point of view taken is that you are paying to join and support the political party. All main parties charge to join as a member to varying degrees

It is obviously free to vote in an election though.

The vast majority of citizens are not members of any political party, even people who vote for a party their whole life probably are not actually a member of that party.

(The phrase "poll tax" is extremely toxic in the UK and sends a shudder down the spine. Cheers Thatcher........ )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_riots


Ah okay. Makes it seem like being a party member is more of a weird, exclusive social club idk how to explain it. I guess my views are shaped by my American experience since it costs nothing here to register for a party if you so wish and most primaries are open primaries (you don't have to be a member of a specific party to vote for a candidate of said party, but you only get to vote in one party's primary).

Lol so y'all have experienced the wonders of the poll tax too.
Image
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 8485
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:55 pm

LMAO wrote:
UFGN wrote:
LMAO wrote:
UFGN wrote:
Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:
LMAO wrote:How do your party leadership elections work?

Is it like our closed primaries where you have to be registered for a certain party to be allowed to vote for your preferred candidate to represent the seat in question in an election (except in your case, to be party leader)? And if so, is it a winner-take-all system or some weird electoral vote system (where each district is allotted a specific number of votes that goes to the candidate with the greatest popular vote in that district, and in the end, all the districts are pooled together and the candidate with the most electoral votes wins) like in some of our primaries?

So like, if Starmer, for instance, gets a plurality (or a majority) of the popular vote, he's leader and that's done and dusted?


Each party has its own rules. Labour currently holds an election restricted to MPs and EMPs plus a few other entities that are key party players. The general public really has no say.


Members of the public can join the Labour party, and then they get a vote.

The Leader is always an MP, it would be unthinkable for them not to choose an MP as leader

This is a good summary of the process

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... t-hopefuls


Muchas gracias.

Is a poll tax not illegal in the UK? Because needing to pay in order to vote is unconstitutional here (even though some states/polling stations violate the 24th Amendment).



The point of view taken is that you are paying to join and support the political party. All main parties charge to join as a member to varying degrees

It is obviously free to vote in an election though.

The vast majority of citizens are not members of any political party, even people who vote for a party their whole life probably are not actually a member of that party.

(The phrase "poll tax" is extremely toxic in the UK and sends a shudder down the spine. Cheers Thatcher........ )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_riots


Ah okay. Makes it seem like being a party member is more of a weird, exclusive social club idk how to explain it. I guess my views are shaped by my American experience since it costs nothing here to register for a party if you so wish and most primaries are open primaries (you don't have to be a member of a specific party to vote for a candidate of said party, but you only get to vote in one party's primary).

Lol so y'all have experienced the wonders of the poll tax too.


I think your system seems to be a symptom of being a two party democracy. Youre either one or the other

The UK clearly has two parties which dominate (Conservative and Labour) but it is not a two party system. There are, off the top of my head, six or seven other parties which have MPs in the Commons. Many more political parties do not have any MPs at present.

I am a full member of the Liberal Democrat Party. The trade union of which I am a member is (kind of) affiliated with the Labour Party.
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19979
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby DiamondGooner » Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:58 pm

Its true, even though we kind of have a 2 party system, there is no reason the Lib Dems couldn't get a surge and become lets say the opposition before moving forward.

We still suffer from the same "Just vote Lab or Con" because we feel tactically that's the best way of winning but Libs do have local seats, in the US its only one or the other.

.............. but that's because we have a democracy.

Big business in America pays to ensure there is only 2 parties in the US so they can control voters, both parties are so corrupt its unreal, anyone who threatens their set up gets rounded on.

They let Trump in because they knew he was for "Big Business", in fact he gave them as much power as they ever had, he just wanted to do a few of his own policies in return.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 22452
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: British Politics

Postby LMAO » Thu Mar 05, 2020 5:51 am

UFGN wrote:I think your system seems to be a symptom of being a two party democracy. Youre either one or the other

The UK clearly has two parties which dominate (Conservative and Labour) but it is not a two party system. There are, off the top of my head, six or seven other parties which have MPs in the Commons. Many more political parties do not have any MPs at present.

I am a full member of the Liberal Democrat Party. The trade union of which I am a member is (kind of) affiliated with the Labour Party.


Yes and no. Our two-party system is more nuanced than simply having two dominant parties.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the UK doesn't have primaries (save for the Tories in 2010 and 2015 for a few seats), rather y'all's parties select candidates to run in constituencies. As such, you guys are more removed from candidates and vote for a party whose platform you agree with the most instead, which gives you more options come general election time, so minorities parties (any party that isn't Conservative or Labour) have more of a shot at receiving votes and winning seats.

In the US, our primary elections add an extra step that serves that purpose. Think of our primaries as voting for a 'party' to represent you. The current top three remaining Dems—Biden, Sanders, Warren—running for president actually illustrate my point almost perfectly; in the UK, Biden would be Conservative, Sanders would be Labour, and Warren would be Lib Dem. So, our Democratic presidential primary is voting for which of those three 'parties' we want to represent us in a further election—the general election in November. And by the time the general election rolls around and the coalitions have formed into Democrats and Republicans, it's akin to voting for which coalition you want to form the majority government.

At least for America, I'd argue the reason for our lack of viable third parties has less to do with FPTP and more to do with campaign financing. As things currently stand, the only parties that can afford to run massive campaigns that reach voters and win seats are the Dems and the GOP (although you'll get the occasional independents like Sanders in Vermont and Angus King in Maine).
Image
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 8485
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby Rockape » Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:27 am

When did you join the Lib Dem’s UFGN, as a matter of interest?

Poll tax, btw has nothing to do with voting, but was a tax brought in to replace ‘Rates’. The idea was that rather than the old lady in no. 32 paying , say £2000 a year for local public services, she paid the same as the family next door that had four working people living there. All five people would pay the same amount of money, because they all got the same benefit.

It wasn’t widely appreciated though! :shout: so was scrapped!
User avatar
Rockape
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:29 am
Location: Puerto Pollensa in my mind

Re: British Politics

Postby Royal Gooner » Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:49 am

LMAO wrote:
UFGN wrote:I think your system seems to be a symptom of being a two party democracy. Youre either one or the other

The UK clearly has two parties which dominate (Conservative and Labour) but it is not a two party system. There are, off the top of my head, six or seven other parties which have MPs in the Commons. Many more political parties do not have any MPs at present.

I am a full member of the Liberal Democrat Party. The trade union of which I am a member is (kind of) affiliated with the Labour Party.


At least for America, I'd argue the reason for our lack of viable third parties has less to do with FPTP and more to do with campaign financing. As things currently stand, the only parties that can afford to run massive campaigns that reach voters and win seats are the Dems and the GOP (although you'll get the occasional independents like Sanders in Vermont and Angus King in Maine).


Plus I think the size of the American electorate makes it less likely that you'll have a 3rd party come out of nowhere to win much. I think the last time it happened was George Wallace when he had the Southern states on a platform of segregation. Places like Maine and Vermont are definitely more likely to elect the 3rd party (as they have) than say Texas or California just simply down to the size of the state and the number of people voting.
User avatar
Royal Gooner
Bertie Mee
Bertie Mee
 
Posts: 9135
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:38 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:15 am

LMAO wrote:
UFGN wrote:I think your system seems to be a symptom of being a two party democracy. Youre either one or the other

The UK clearly has two parties which dominate (Conservative and Labour) but it is not a two party system. There are, off the top of my head, six or seven other parties which have MPs in the Commons. Many more political parties do not have any MPs at present.

I am a full member of the Liberal Democrat Party. The trade union of which I am a member is (kind of) affiliated with the Labour Party.


Yes and no. Our two-party system is more nuanced than simply having two dominant parties.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the UK doesn't have primaries (save for the Tories in 2010 and 2015 for a few seats), rather y'all's parties select candidates to run in constituencies. As such, you guys are more removed from candidates and vote for a party whose platform you agree with the most instead, which gives you more options come general election time, so minorities parties (any party that isn't Conservative or Labour) have more of a shot at receiving votes and winning seats.

In the US, our primary elections add an extra step that serves that purpose. Think of our primaries as voting for a 'party' to represent you. The current top three remaining Dems—Biden, Sanders, Warren—running for president actually illustrate my point almost perfectly; in the UK, Biden would be Conservative, Sanders would be Labour, and Warren would be Lib Dem. So, our Democratic presidential primary is voting for which of those three 'parties' we want to represent us in a further election—the general election in November. And by the time the general election rolls around and the coalitions have formed into Democrats and Republicans, it's akin to voting for which coalition you want to form the majority government.

At least for America, I'd argue the reason for our lack of viable third parties has less to do with FPTP and more to do with campaign financing. As things currently stand, the only parties that can afford to run massive campaigns that reach voters and win seats are the Dems and the GOP (although you'll get the occasional independents like Sanders in Vermont and Angus King in Maine).


You are right that we vote for local constituents, not the leader. Although in practice of course if you dont like the leader youre less likely to vote for the local candidate

I dont agree that our electoral system in anyway helps small parties to exist **. The FPTP system we have actively prevents smaller parties from gaining MPs.

For example in the 2019 election:

Liberal Democrats got 11% of the popular vote and won 11 seats

Labour got 32% and 202 seats!!!

Our FPTP system is a farce

I also dont agree that your primaries are a substitute for having multiple parties. True, mist people here dont join a party, but you can if you want to. As a Lib Dem member I can play an active role, if I want to, in attending meetings, questioning and lobbying the leadership and, in a small way, help to formulate policy. Parties also are able to create a political legacy, fund long term reserch, and do other long term things that an.individual cant.

** Some parties are small because they are regional parties and only field candidates in their area. These parties often do win seats in Parliament.
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19979
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby Rockape » Thu Mar 05, 2020 4:15 pm

Liberal Democrats got 11% of the popular vote and won 11 seats

Labour got 32% and 202 seats!!!

Our FPTP system is a farce


That really doesn't present the full picture though, does it? We don't vote for our PM, we vote for our MP, so the fact that some constituencies have a much higher number of voters than others, gives you the ability to trot out misleading facts like that.

Every constituency has its own geographical issues that will sway the voters towards or away from the various political parties, so if you're a labour supporter in Surrey, your vote will be wasted and if you're a Labour or Tory in Scotland currently, they will be wasted too. As long as we continue voting for our local MP and not the PM, then I don't see how it can change.

PS> You didn't answer my question about when you joined UFGN. I am just interested in what moment in time you were politically motivated to join a party that has had a very chequered recent history. Its not a stick to beat you with....honest!
Last edited by Rockape on Thu Mar 05, 2020 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rockape
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:29 am
Location: Puerto Pollensa in my mind

Re: British Politics

Postby Pat Rice in Short Shorts » Thu Mar 05, 2020 4:17 pm

LMAO wrote:
UFGN wrote:I think your system seems to be a symptom of being a two party democracy. Youre either one or the other

The UK clearly has two parties which dominate (Conservative and Labour) but it is not a two party system. There are, off the top of my head, six or seven other parties which have MPs in the Commons. Many more political parties do not have any MPs at present.

I am a full member of the Liberal Democrat Party. The trade union of which I am a member is (kind of) affiliated with the Labour Party.


Yes and no. Our two-party system is more nuanced than simply having two dominant parties.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the UK doesn't have primaries (save for the Tories in 2010 and 2015 for a few seats), rather y'all's parties select candidates to run in constituencies. As such, you guys are more removed from candidates and vote for a party whose platform you agree with the most instead, which gives you more options come general election time, so minorities parties (any party that isn't Conservative or Labour) have more of a shot at receiving votes and winning seats.

In the US, our primary elections add an extra step that serves that purpose. Think of our primaries as voting for a 'party' to represent you. The current top three remaining Dems—Biden, Sanders, Warren—running for president actually illustrate my point almost perfectly; in the UK, Biden would be Conservative, Sanders would be Labour, and Warren would be Lib Dem. So, our Democratic presidential primary is voting for which of those three 'parties' we want to represent us in a further election—the general election in November. And by the time the general election rolls around and the coalitions have formed into Democrats and Republicans, it's akin to voting for which coalition you want to form the majority government.

At least for America, I'd argue the reason for our lack of viable third parties has less to do with FPTP and more to do with campaign financing. As things currently stand, the only parties that can afford to run massive campaigns that reach voters and win seats are the Dems and the GOP (although you'll get the occasional independents like Sanders in Vermont and Angus King in Maine).


I think the lack of viability has to do with how few people actually buy into third party issues. They tend to be fringe poorly funded groups like the Green Party, DSA, the Communist Party or Libertarians and the only way that they get close to being elected is to ride the coattails of the two main parties. That and our representative republic system was designed not to mirror the parliamentary system.

"Independents" like Sanders and King always vote with and tow the line Dem line. King especially knows that calling himself an independant is a positive in Maine where the culture reflects perceptions of independence but in truth Maine-iacs are just as tied to party affiliations and ideology as any other block.
What would Nasri do? Never mind.
What would Eboue do? Fall off the stretcher.
What would Auba do? Just f***ing score.
Pat Rice in Short Shorts
Thierry Henry
Thierry Henry
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:05 pm
Location: Montana USA by way of Lewisham/Bromley UK

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Thu Mar 05, 2020 5:40 pm

Rockape wrote:
Liberal Democrats got 11% of the popular vote and won 11 seats

Labour got 32% and 202 seats!!!

Our FPTP system is a farce


That really doesn't present the full picture though, does it? We don't vote for our PM, we vote for our MP, so the fact that some constituencies have a much higher number of voters than others, gives you the ability to trot out misleading facts like that.

Every constituency has its own geographical issues that will sway the voters towards or away from the various political parties, so if you're a labour supporter in Surrey, your vote will be wasted and if you're a Labour or Tory in Scotland currently, they will be wasted too. As long as we continue voting for our local MP and not the PM, then I don't see how it can change.

PS> You didn't answer my question about when you joined UFGN. I am just interested in what moment in time you were politically motivated to join a party that has had a very chequered recent history. Its not a stick to beat you with....honest!


I joined the Lib Dems after their drubbing in the 2015 election. It was an incredibly unfair result for them. They had in my view had no choice but to join the Tories in coalition, and while in power as the junior partner they did their level best to stand up for their principles.

They protected the country from the worst excesses of Tory scummery, and then it was they that took the bullet for a public angry at Tory policies.

They are unapologetic in their support for the EU, so am I.

They strongly support civil rights and are the only party to call bullshit on the "terrorists and pedo's" mantra whenever personal privacy or freedom are sacrificed at the ulter of "security"

They strongly support proportional representation, and so do i

I feel they were weak in negotiating the terms of the coalition, and there lies the beginnings of all the mistakes they made in coalition. But they didnt deserve the outcome they got.

The facts as I layed them out are not misleading in the slightest. The FPTP system needs binning.

The fact is that a party can in theory achieve a couple votes less than the winning candidate in hundreds of constituencies, totalling millions of votes, and not get a single MP

The Lib Dems, even when they had 23% of the popular vote only had 8.7% of the MPs. That is wrong, whichever way you argue it, it is plain wrong and does not represent democracy.

I absolutely concede that the various types of PR have their own shortfalls but none of those shortfalls justify keeping the status quo
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19979
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby Rockape » Thu Mar 05, 2020 5:53 pm

It would certainly be interesting,(PR) but ultimately would just lead to nothing getting done!
User avatar
Rockape
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:29 am
Location: Puerto Pollensa in my mind

Re: British Politics

Postby Pat Rice in Short Shorts » Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:48 pm

They strongly support proportional representation, and so do i

The fact is that a party can in theory achieve a couple votes less than the winning candidate in hundreds of constituencies, totalling millions of votes, and not get a single MP

The Lib Dems, even when they had 23% of the popular vote only had 8.7% of the MPs. That is wrong, whichever way you argue it, it is plain wrong and does not represent democracy.



In a representative democracy one can never achieve what you want. Direct democracy promotes tyranny of the majority, which is a real fear if one really cares about individual rights and liberty. Currently it might advantageous for the left to demand direct democracy, but the dangers of not mitigating wild destabilizing swings in political power, (which historically can destroy nations from within and lead to totalitarianism ) is what is being guarded against. Expediency based on political whims is very dangerous and cuts both ways. Be careful what you wish for.

The status quo, in terms of basic election systems and form of governance is widely supported by citizens but opposed by those who are frustrated because they are in the minority and often by those who I would consider to be rather rash malcontents. In the US the Libertarians and DSA folks pop to mind. Changing policy is a political issue and one that we in the west have found to best decided through the various representative founded democratic systems.
What would Nasri do? Never mind.
What would Eboue do? Fall off the stretcher.
What would Auba do? Just f***ing score.
Pat Rice in Short Shorts
Thierry Henry
Thierry Henry
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:05 pm
Location: Montana USA by way of Lewisham/Bromley UK

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:25 pm

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:
They strongly support proportional representation, and so do i

The fact is that a party can in theory achieve a couple votes less than the winning candidate in hundreds of constituencies, totalling millions of votes, and not get a single MP

The Lib Dems, even when they had 23% of the popular vote only had 8.7% of the MPs. That is wrong, whichever way you argue it, it is plain wrong and does not represent democracy.



In a representative democracy one can never achieve what you want. Direct democracy promotes tyranny of the majority, which is a real fear if one really cares about individual rights and liberty. Currently it might advantageous for the left to demand direct democracy, but the dangers of not mitigating wild destabilizing swings in political power, (which historically can destroy nations from within and lead to totalitarianism ) is what is being guarded against. Expediency based on political whims is very dangerous and cuts both ways. Be careful what you wish for.

The status quo, in terms of basic election systems and form of governance is widely supported by citizens but opposed by those who are frustrated because they are in the minority and often by those who I would consider to be rather rash malcontents. In the US the Libertarians and DSA folks pop to mind. Changing policy is a political issue and one that we in the west have found to best decided through the various representative founded democratic systems.



Exactly. People who YOU would consider to be "rather rash malcontents." Mr "I'm happy with the system because it represents people like me" doesn't want people he scoffs at to have a true share of influence that fairly represents their numbers..... quell surprise!!

Nobody mentioned direct democracy, that is a straw man. There are lots of versions of PR / AV / Second preference systems that can work in a parliamentary democracy. Most have some faults but all are better than FPTP, which basically burns all the votes of everyone who didnt vote for the winning MP in their constituency.

87 countries currently use varying types of PR / AV
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19979
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby LMAO » Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:32 pm

UFGN wrote:
LMAO wrote:
UFGN wrote:I think your system seems to be a symptom of being a two party democracy. Youre either one or the other

The UK clearly has two parties which dominate (Conservative and Labour) but it is not a two party system. There are, off the top of my head, six or seven other parties which have MPs in the Commons. Many more political parties do not have any MPs at present.

I am a full member of the Liberal Democrat Party. The trade union of which I am a member is (kind of) affiliated with the Labour Party.


Yes and no. Our two-party system is more nuanced than simply having two dominant parties.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the UK doesn't have primaries (save for the Tories in 2010 and 2015 for a few seats), rather y'all's parties select candidates to run in constituencies. As such, you guys are more removed from candidates and vote for a party whose platform you agree with the most instead, which gives you more options come general election time, so minorities parties (any party that isn't Conservative or Labour) have more of a shot at receiving votes and winning seats.

In the US, our primary elections add an extra step that serves that purpose. Think of our primaries as voting for a 'party' to represent you. The current top three remaining Dems—Biden, Sanders, Warren—running for president actually illustrate my point almost perfectly; in the UK, Biden would be Conservative, Sanders would be Labour, and Warren would be Lib Dem. So, our Democratic presidential primary is voting for which of those three 'parties' we want to represent us in a further election—the general election in November. And by the time the general election rolls around and the coalitions have formed into Democrats and Republicans, it's akin to voting for which coalition you want to form the majority government.

At least for America, I'd argue the reason for our lack of viable third parties has less to do with FPTP and more to do with campaign financing. As things currently stand, the only parties that can afford to run massive campaigns that reach voters and win seats are the Dems and the GOP (although you'll get the occasional independents like Sanders in Vermont and Angus King in Maine).


You are right that we vote for local constituents, not the leader. Although in practice of course if you dont like the leader youre less likely to vote for the local candidate

I dont agree that our electoral system in anyway helps small parties to exist **. The FPTP system we have actively prevents smaller parties from gaining MPs.

For example in the 2019 election:

Liberal Democrats got 11% of the popular vote and won 11 seats

Labour got 32% and 202 seats!!!

Our FPTP system is a farce

I also dont agree that your primaries are a substitute for having multiple parties. True, mist people here dont join a party, but you can if you want to. As a Lib Dem member I can play an active role, if I want to, in attending meetings, questioning and lobbying the leadership and, in a small way, help to formulate policy. Parties also are able to create a political legacy, fund long term reserch, and do other long term things that an.individual cant.

** Some parties are small because they are regional parties and only field candidates in their area. These parties often do win seats in Parliament.


Haha, I should've said in comparison to ours (though that isn't a difficult feat).

Yeah, we have the same thing here with districts. Democrats have to win the national popular vote by at least 6 points in order to have a chance at a majority in the House. In 2012, Democrats won the House popular vote 48.8% to 47.6%, yet the breakdown of House seats was 201 Democrats to 234 Republicans! Democrats had to win by 8.6 points in 2018 to get the same numbers (53.4% Dem to 44.8% Rep, 234 Dem seats to 199 GOP seats). :dizzy: Gerrymandering here is fvcked. Republicans always tout we have a fair and balanced system, but that's only because they benefit from it! Their tunes would change real quick if the situation was reversed.

I'd prefer us to move to some sort of RCV and proportional representation, but I don't see that happening anytime soon with the two parties firmly entrenched in their power structures.
Image
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 8485
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby EliteKiller » Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:28 am

LMAO wrote:Yes and no. Our two-party system is more nuanced than simply having two dominant parties.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the UK doesn't have primaries (save for the Tories in 2010 and 2015 for a few seats), rather y'all's parties select candidates to run in constituencies. As such, you guys are more removed from candidates and vote for a party whose platform you agree with the most instead, which gives you more options come general election time, so minorities parties (any party that isn't Conservative or Labour) have more of a shot at receiving votes and winning seats.

In the US, our primary elections add an extra step that serves that purpose. Think of our primaries as voting for a 'party' to represent you. The current top three remaining Dems—Biden, Sanders, Warren—running for president actually illustrate my point almost perfectly; in the UK, Biden would be Conservative, Sanders would be Labour, and Warren would be Lib Dem. So, our Democratic presidential primary is voting for which of those three 'parties' we want to represent us in a further election—the general election in November. And by the time the general election rolls around and the coalitions have formed into Democrats and Republicans, it's akin to voting for which coalition you want to form the majority government.

At least for America, I'd argue the reason for our lack of viable third parties has less to do with FPTP and more to do with campaign financing. As things currently stand, the only parties that can afford to run massive campaigns that reach voters and win seats are the Dems and the GOP (although you'll get the occasional independents like Sanders in Vermont and Angus King in Maine).


The problem with the US system is that it's played as "winner takes all" where almost a third of the population are going to be disenfranchised by living in a state where the 'winner' is not on their side. The UK is no better but at least other parties get to play .. the US is a closed shop Dem + Rep

Bloomberg has more money that the Reps or the Dems but he couldn't stand as an independent, the same goes for Trump and Bernie, to a lesser degree they have the money or could raise the money to match a party candidate ... but ... what they don't have is the party machine with judges, senators, congressmen, and 1,000's of down-ballot elected officials ... even if by some miracle an independent got elected the judiciary, house and senate would stop him/her doing anything.

Look at the difference between the US and the UK:

US elected representatives at all levels - Reps 46% - Dems 48% - Others 6%
UK elected representatives at all levels - Tory 28% - Labour 28% - Libs 19% - Others 25%

In the UK an Independent could latch onto 25% of "others" down-ballot the LibDems as the third party only need a 10% swing to become number one, if either and independent or a Lib gained power they could have support to get things done ... that's just impossible in the US without one of the party machines behind you.

Until the US changes it's 19th century electoral system they are stuck with two party politics right v a bit less right ...
EliteKiller
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Big Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EliteKiller, Google [Bot], jayramfootball and 3 guests