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

Hi Bx4

"…Surely the notion that the party in power should be allowed to simply co-opt people without the involvement of the electorate only serves to increase the democratic deficit…"

This is contrary to the British way where we have an entire chamber of parliament inhabited by noble placemen.

"…Swiss government / Walden Number …"

I agree these would benefit from a revisit. There was an interesting item in the BBC news about the Swiss referendum to decide on secret ballots for voting on individual citizenship. The BBC seemed to take the line that this was a fearful prospect. In the event the Swiss took the opposite tack by some considerable margin.

AFK for a while though glad that your exile has enabled this discussion to revive.

Morning rg

No problem: Except of course the original model was designed to give representation to voters who do *not* want to participate in a referendum process. Your solution *requires* that they do.

Stuffed: I think we are back to an area where we have been before. To reiterate my position.

Leaving aside the built in democratic deficit of representative democracy. It seems unlikely that any voter in an FPTP system with a few parties and no tradition of coalition politics would expect to find a party all of whose policies they would agree with.

Also we do not, as you suggest, 'in effect...have to vote for a party'. Since there is no mandatory requirement to vote, one is not required to vote for any party.

I am not convinced in any case that when voters vote for a party they are necessarily voting for specific policies. They may simply consider that the general zeitgeist of their party of choice.

So a sort of rational choice theory may operate where voters are making a more generalised choice where they assume that 'their' party is more likely to make decisions that are closer to their personal views.

Also you cannot assume that a voter is making a positive choice for the party he votes for. The vote may be tactical and aimed excluding a second party whose policies they are opposed to.

Further, there are clearly 'tribal' voters whose vote not for policies at all but simply because a particular party is the one that, historically or culturally, represents their tribe

Walden Number: I have mentioned it in a later post so, I'll come back to it.

'
Afternoon Bx4

I suppose voters can't have it both ways. They either have to give their trust to parliament, the political party of their choice or A N Other or they have to actively participate in the democratic process. We are certainly forever stuffed if we keep the system we enjoy now.

No matter how many political parties there are not everyone will be able to agree with every policy of even one. That's the beauty of the referendum system, we wouldn't have to throw in our lot with one set of thieves. Granted we don't have to vote. This is like ceding power to those who do.

General zietgeist – I know what you mean. Labour high tax, high spend, Tory less well funded public services and taxes not rising as fast. Nether the less should a party makes a specific undertaking in its manifesto it shouldn't be surprised that the electorate has in its mind the expectation that at the very least it doesn't do the opposite.

What would be the point of tactical voting in a fully PR system? Why is tribal voting a problem? I look forward to reading your take on the Walden Number.

bsy