h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm generally in favour of Proportional Representation in politics, but a situation has arisen in Dundee where the SNP won a clear majority in the council, but Labour and the Lib Dems have got together to deny the SNP power. Does this reflect democracy or subvert it? It could be argued that the combined votes for Lab & Lib represent an overall majority, but I feel this kind of politicking leaves a bad taste. Is this perhaps a sign of what may come in the Scottish Parliament?

http://www.stv.tv/content/news/tayside/display.html?id=opencms:/news/tayside/SNP_to_be_denied_power_of_Dundee_council

If they won a clear majority they couldn't be denied power
Presumably they were the largest minority in which case I have no problem with a majority being formed by other parties who have more in common with each other than they do with the SNP

Oops, sorry. Bad wording yes. They are the largest single party.

Take an extreme example.
An extremist party gets 10% of the vote, and 10 centrist parties get 9% each.
Is it fair for the extremist party to take power?
What would be the point of them taking power if they couldn't get any policies passed?

The point of a coalition or similar arrangement is effectively to say "We've agreed to cooperate, and we are likely to vote together on enough issues that we may as well be in control".

If the voters really hate the idea they'll have the chance of making that clear at the next election. The only situation where it would seem wrong is where pre-election pledges had been made to the electorate about who or might not be cooperated with, and where those pledges are then ignored, but that seems to be the kind of trick that could only be used once.

I always thought this was a strength of PR, that it didn't allow the largest minority to govern as if it had won an outright majority like our FPTP system allows to happen in general elections

Take another extreme example then. The SNP get 40%, Lab get 39%, Lib get 2%. Lab & Lib combine to block SNP.

But the Liberals drive a hard bargain and get some of their policies adopted by Labour as the price of coalition.

So policies that were utterly rejected by the electorate get pushed through anyway.

The 'horsetrading' problem is most acute when the largest single party is kept out of power, but it can crop up in other cases whenever a party deviates from its manifesto commitments in order to form a coalition government.

But it's not a problem that's unique to PR by any means. It'll happen whenever a single party doesn't have an overall majority - though it is true that PR is more likely to bring about 'hung parliaments' in a British context.

But it could also have advantages. At the moment we have two main parties which each cover a broad spectrum of political views among its members. It's probably fair to say that there's more common ground between Blairites and the 'one nation' Tories than between the Blairites and old Labour or between the ONTs and the Thatcherite Tories.

No breakway in the manner of the old SDP could be successful now in the UK context under the UK voting system, but a PR system might make such things possible. This would lead to a more fragmented system of parties and even less chance of a majority single party government, but would give the electorate more choice.

"Take another extreme example then. The SNP get 40%, Lab get 39%, Lib get 2%. Lab & Lib combine to block SNP.

But the Liberals drive a hard bargain and get some of their policies adopted by Labour as the price of coalition.

So policies that were utterly rejected by the electorate get pushed through anyway."

No different really than if the SNP were allowed to govern and policies that were rejected by 60% of the population were pushed through. In most PR systems there is usually more than one possible Coalition partner so if the LDs took the position you propose Labour might consider a coalition with the Tories and/or Greens instead.

"But the Liberals drive a hard bargain and get some of their policies adopted by Labour as the price of coalition."

Then the liberals are doing their job representing those that they did receive votes from.
And Labour would have to answer for there choice of what to acquiesce on in a bid for power.

Hm, good points all round.

I think another thing to mention in this context is that the government doesn't (or at least shouldn't be able to) *dictate* the policies of a parliament - otherwise there'd be no point being in opposition as opposed to not being elected at all. When it comes down to it, most decisions will go to a vote, and parties will lean in different directions at different times.

Obviously, PR implicitly plays up the notion of party membership as opposed to individual conscience, or responsibility to a particular constituency, but even the FPTP local elections in England are fought on party lines, and anyone voting against party policy in Westminster is labelled a "rebel", so that's nothing new.

It's also worth remembering that minorities are sometimes *worth* representing, and the need for parties to make compromises is likely to be better overall than the "tyranny of the majority".

[IMSoP]

The biggest single problem with PR is that youcan only vote for politicians.



Why dont we pay directly for democracy.

Why not a chamber where any tom dick or harry can get up and have their say (in an orderly fashion of course). With the techonologies at hand we dont even need an assembly any more.

Why cant you get you debit card out and pay say two pence for your one and only vote on each bill of law. You could have Jack Spratt and Thom Thumb arguing aghainst Jilly Tupence and Manjit Kaur over free hair cuts on the NHS. JS wants to privatise more of the NHS TT wants to keep things the same, while JT wants only basic cuts provided free and MK thinks we should be getting free highlights and blow-drying.

You phone up pay from your bank account and hey presto you have taken part in the pardon the pun cutting edge of democracy. While the proposal with the most votes gets to be put into action each voted collected behind them is given to the speaker to fund their political career or not as the case maybe. So none of your "Im going to do what I like till I need your vote in a few years time stuff.

People would vote about issues they care about and speakers who wanted funds would have to engage the public to get them interested in political activities if they wanted to get paid. Not like now whee a few people sit debatiing and voting on things we have little idea about or interest in.

The system Im suggesting wouldnt be perfect and Ive probably missed a few gaping holes but its not like we cant say that about our present system.

I think Ross Perot proposed something simliar, without having to make people pay to vote.

I'm afraid the problem would be that it would grant power to the fanatics - because they'd be the ones turning out daily, and voting on every issue.

Of course it could be argued that since they're the ones that care so much they're the best people to run the place.