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

Morning all,

Yesterday The Indpendent launched a campaign to "expose the iniquities of Britains electoral system" . Today's copy has a front page of letters from readers, one of which is short and telling.

I quote " What exists in this country is the equivalent of tyranny, when 36% can determine how 64% are governed. And we preach to the Middle East about democracy!

Comments welcomed, especially in the light of two pieces of news that caught my eye.

1 The Chief Constable of Hampshire lambasts the Judiciary for lenient sentencing

2 We are apparently supplying a hate filled and hate preaching cleric with a People Carrier, - no doubt on Benefits through the disabled Mobility Scheme. (Cf Abu Hamsa )

Would a sizable chunk of the 64% have a strong view on these items, and if so how would they effect change which could reflect such views in the actions of @their@ government?.

A sizable chunk of the other 64% might be interested in Proprtional Representation - it works!

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm

PR Library is for citizens, activists, politicians, students and anyone else who wants to learn more about proportional representation elections (PR). Proportional representation -- sometimes also called "full representation" -- is the voting system used in most Western democracies and is widely considered to be fairer and more democratic than the current U.S. system. In the United States, interest in this electoral reform has been growing rapidly, fueled by Americans' frustration with our traditional winner-take-all elections. The different kinds of information about PR that are contained on this site are described below. There is also a search engine -- provided by Picosearch -- that may be useful for finding information about specific topics.

Let me start with your points.

1. Disabled person given benefits shock - surprisingly enough, disabled entitlements tend to depend on being disabled or not - not on whether you are a nice person or whether you are a hate filled Daily Mail reader, for example.

2. That is why we need an independent judiciary. Obviously, if we lock people away for even the smallest crimes, this makes policing easier. It's also incredibly expensive, inefficient, and damaging to society in the longer term. But the Chief Constable clearly isn't worried about that - not his problem.

Thirdly, the 36% of the vote point is largely a red herring. Our current voting system has the advantage of delivering a stable majority. This is not a neglible issue. Lots of hung governments is not necessarily the way forward. It is not the equivalent of tyranny. A PR system can be fairer in certain ways, but doesn't allow voters to integrate local issues to the same extent as they did last week.

sprout

PR doesn't always work. There is a large body of evidence which points to the fact that it was PR which led to Hitler and Mussolini being able to seize power as easily as they did.

It can also lead to the most bizarre alliances where thugs like Nick Griffin get a ministerial post in return for propping up a slender majority.

Not such a good idea, methinks.

<< A PR system can be fairer in certain ways, but doesn't allow voters to integrate local issues to the same extent as they did last week. >>

What local issues were they?

________________________

<< a large body of evidence which points to the fact that it was PR which led to Hitler and Mussolini being able to seize power as easily as they did.>>

So... your point is? First past the post enabled Thatcher, Bush, Reagan, etc etc to seize power

They didn't 'seize' power, whatever hysteria says. They were democratically elected. And Reagan and Bush won over 50% of the popular vote.

Here in the Uk only 3 governments in the last century have enjoyed a majority of the popular vote (and the last of those was over 50 years ago). Why it's suddenly become such a subject of angst and hand-wringing is beyond me.

On the question of sentencing by the judiciary, experiences here in Essex suggest that when given the full range facts and mitigating features presented to Judges, rather than just the media hysteria surrounding 'high profile' cases, members of the public invariably will 'choose' sentences very much in line with the judiciary.

Chief Constables have their own agendas which shouldn't be assumed to be those of the genral public or whats best for the country as a whole.

And don't you just love the flavour of this democratically elected stable majority that has just rewarded a modest contributor to party funds with a peerage after previously awarding his company a lucrative contract, without the bother of going out to tender of course, the profits from which no doubt went towards the next party contribution. So the price for a peerage works out at £100k deposit and a £250k final payment. How much did Lloyd George charge?

I have mixed emotions on the subject of electoral reform. I can broadly categorise this as "theory" and "practice".

In theory I am largly convinced and in favour of electoral reform. I think it is virtually impossible to make a strong case that our system is "fair". We do have a system where the vast majority of votes cast were against the government. Yet the government has an absolute majority.

We also have a situation where millions of peoples votes just simply dont count in a meaningfull sense. Smaller parties (regardless of their legitimacy or otherwise) are unfairly penalised and many people are not able to vote for the part that represents their views.

On the other hand however in prectice I feel that the UK electoral system does and has worked quite well for some time. Undoubtably it delvers stong (perhaps read "powerfull") governments. And because we do not have a system of "coalition" governments accountability is very clear. One party is in charge and we know that largely whatever goes right or wrong is down to them. This helps the electorate make their choice (if the are 5 parties in coalition who is really responsible for the successes/failures?).

As to the PR letting in BNP ect.... Whilst I think that extreme parties obtaining some influence to be a de facto bad thing, I also feel it is something of a red herring. Firstly the condiditions that applioed to Weimar Germany and pre war Italy are very different from the situation now. THe failures of the Weimar constitution to prevent Nazism is not in any way a coherant argument against 21st centuary Britain reforming its election rules.

We have to ask ourselves "What are elections for?" Surely they are so people can elect people to represent them and if so largely they should be able to vote for who they want. I would also point out that whilst FPP prevent the BNP/UKIP/Veritas getting influence, it also prevents the Greens and the proper Socialist parties from having a voice. In a way huge proportions of the voters and political opinion are silenced in the UK. I for one would love to vote green/socialist if I thought my vote wouldn't be wasted.

In conclusion then I am largely undecided, I think there are good arguments on both sides. But a last thought specifically to Blues. The reason it has become such an issue now is that Labour have one a large majority with the smalles share of the popular vote ever. That kinsd of thing always brings these issues into sharp focus.

Hi Sprout

1.I accept that benefits are given to those 'entitled' to them. Right & Proper. I was thinking about the old adage " don't bite the hand that feeds you". I would rather spend the benefits flying the Hamsa types to a country they would like , rather than one they prport to hate.

2.I strongly support an independant judiciary, posted to that effect on POV Board when our Home Sec tried to appropriate powers. But I don't think that was the point of the Chief Constables view. But I will read his actual statement before saying anything more.

3.I don't accept the tennet of your point about PR. There are many systems avilable, apparently the Germans now have a good one which gives a vote for th candidate of your choice, then the party of your choice. If a party gets more votes than candidates then a balancing number of Candidates is selected from a 'standby list' so that the party gets the number of people the population has indicated it wants , but individually you can get your local man 'in'.( I think that it is how it works!) Lastly do you think the present system DID allow people to integrate local issues last week?

Novo

On the matter of 'local issues' you only need to look at the results in Gwent Blennau and whichever bit of North London got rid of Oona King. Both were decided on entirely local issues.

I must say I find it mildly ironic that McKay is complaining about people returning a corpulaent and possibly corrupt Labour MP whereas both myself and SLG are moaning about the return of a corpulaent and possibly corrupt Tory MP in our constituency.

And I have to say that I am in favour of 'strong' government. I do believe it's better to have a clear decision than a series of fudges and compromises (the usual result of PR).

I'm pretty sure the economic stagnation of Germany is partially because they can't pull in a clear direction. And the Italian model (the most democratic country in the world - eventually everybody will have had a go at being PM) is hardly encouraging either.

Hi Novo,
TB doesn't need standby lists he just sends party apparatchiks like Andrew Adonis to the Lords and then promotes them to minister. V democratic.

No more or less democratic than most of the other governments of the 20th century.

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.’

Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution

I particularly like the

Oops keep forgetting this is New Labour.

<< if we lock people away for even the smallest crimes, this makes policing easier. It's also incredibly expensive, inefficient, and damaging to society in the longer term. >>>

I would love to see some real statistics on this. Round here, we have a lot of young thugs who smash up cars, set fire to community buildings etc, resulting in £100Ks of damage. They get caught, eventually, and locked away for a couple of weeks. The state also pays the policing costs, prosecution and defence costs, admin costs, prison costs: more £100ks. Two weeks later they're out and the process begins again. Except this time there may be electronic tags to fund too.

Even ignoring victims' emotional and finincial costs and concentrating purely on state finance, can anyone really, honestly tell me that this is cheaper overall than locking them out of harms way for a year or so?

I think it is interesting when this passive-aggressive stance is used to somehow entice (cajole, berate...) those who've not voted and get them to try to somehow choose through the stagnancy which exists presently and elect someone who reflects (by and large) a person's feelings on a national and international stage.

I found it extremely positive to think that the local area of Blaenau Gwent in Wales and George Galloway's slim majority in Central London caused enough emotion within the local voters to make them actually get off their backsides and go to vote. It's so refreshing to see active political revolt to get the message across to the greater community, along with the national intrigue that comes with such shows of defiance.

It is very interesting to think that there is much discussion of voter apathy yet consistent party support can also be seen as a negative - the concept of voting for a party "for the sake" or "because, well, it's always the one I vote for" seems to me to be the reason behind 36% of the country governing 64%.

I am now 29 and have never voted. I will never vote until it gets to a time where I am forced to by my democratic government or affiliate myself with a certain party (or movement) so much that they are deserved of my vote.

Persistently, and I am positive there will be some response to my post, I have been berated for my point of view on this and have been thrown the hackneyed old phrase of "people died for you to be able to vote". For that, I am truly, honestly thankful. But it is my will and democratic choice not to excise my vote. Nor to turn up to the poll and spoil my ticket - an act I have always found to be pointless. It neither changes things or denotes to anyone (except the returning officer when he blurts it out at the announcement) that you've spoilt your ballot on purpose.

Yet, after all this, I do have faith in democracy. Rather, I have faith in the ideal of democracy; the freedom of choice it brings. However, if there is no real difference how can you choose effectively and thus how does a democracy exist? Perhaps that's too hard a question to pose or indeed answer? Is it rhetorical?

"Round here, we have a lot of young thugs who smash up cars, set fire to community buildings etc, resulting in £100Ks of damage. They get caught, eventually, and locked away for a couple of weeks. The state also pays the policing costs, prosecution and defence costs, admin costs, prison costs: more £100ks. Two weeks later they're out and the process begins again"

Really? hmmmmm...

So where you live arsonists get two weeks eh? Personal experience or did you just read that in the Daily Hate.

It was a generalisation but yes, I have heard of local vandals being jailed for 10 days for damage in six figures and then repeating it immediately after release.

The ones that burned down the local church hall haven't actually been caught yet so I've no idea what sentence they'll get.

Dave - for some ideas of prison cost relative to alternatives you might want to look at this link http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf/comm_corr_summ.pdf

or this one http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=prison

Can't find any good UK comparisons, but it seems the cost per per prisoner per day in a UK high security prison is £118 - cat C prison £53.

sprout