It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like:Chrome,Firefox,Internet Explorer orOpera

×
arrow-down2arrowcart2close4fat-arrow-leftfat-arrow-rightfeedbackfriends2happy-facelogo-gognotificationnotifications-emptyownedremove-menusad-facesearch2wishlist-menuwishlisted2own_thingsheartstartick
This weekend, the british could vote in a referendum about their electoral system. Instead of going with an alternative voting system which would have been more of a proportionality system, they decided to keep the traditional system by a very large majority of votes.

http://ukreferendumresults.aboutmyvote.co.uk/en/default.aspx

I for myself regard the proportionality system far more democratic than the majority system which over-emphasises small differences and lets parties win (having the majority of seats) that have far less than 50% of total votes, i.e. representing only a minority. The days of a strict two party system are over and anyway: who always would want to have only such limited choice? I think that the present and future voting system is not really democratic, but obviously there must be many people out there who think different.

So just one question that puzzles me: UK people really don't like to have choice? Next election, if your candidat has not a very good chance, you can abstain from voting anyway because it will not make any difference.
The assumption is that a democracy is a good place to find oneself in as a citizen. That's never been the case. But then neither has a monarchy, socialist state, anarchy or republic.

It's obvious, we need Skynet. Don't let the human propaganda films fool you into thinking different.
In our country there's a pretty big group of people who would like to change our electoral system (it's proportionality system) to the system they have in UK.
Post edited May 09, 2011 by SLP2000
avatar
SLP2000: I belive two party system is better than a system with many parties, because in two party system it's obvious who is resbonsible for failures and not keeping promises.
You only need to look at our system to see how horribly unbalanced a two party system becomes. The only natural path to retain majority votes in its party is to become so much the polar opposite of the rival party, that the high ground becomes a wasteland, a no man's land where no one occupies except the few still clutching onto our Constitution.
I don't vote at all. The way I see it is none of the parties have the country's best interests at heart and I'd rather not be responsible for voting them in when they screw it up. Some people might say that I have no right to complain about the party in power if I don't vote against them but I think it's foolish to think that the others would be any different.

As far as only 2 parties really being in play in this country, it's true but on paper at least they're close to polar opposites and provide a broad spectrum but all I can see at the moment is the country in a downward spiral because the Politicians are spending too much time trying to do what looks good and picking off easy targets instead of actually putting any real effort into it. Some local electorates are a little better but not by much and half the time I'm not sure what they're actually supposed to be doing so I don't bother voting in the locals either.
avatar
SLP2000: In our country there's a pretty big group of people who would like to change our electoral system (it's proportionality system) to the system they have in UK.
Of course. I bet they say somthing akin to "we have 51% of the votes, so obviously we should have 98% of the seats".
At times like this, it's time to turn to your Heinlein. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
avatar
GameRager: Out of all the systems proposed throughout history it's the best we as a species have come up with........so saying it's the better system is kinda true. The best system in theory and if held to the letter of the definition and ideal though....though this is never the case with any political system.
The ideal system is the one set up in the U.S. Constitution. A republic where the elected bodies aren't elected to give into the demands of the people who bitch the loudest, but as elected to protect the rights of every single person under its jurisdiction.

But people who wanted power and wanted to make sure you kept in line with their own beliefs (and in the history of our country, and the world, that's mostly self-righteous religious inspired shit), they made and make damn sure to ignore that as much as the people who want to bitch the loudest to get their way want to ignore it. So the majority always wins, and special interests always win.

Democracy fails because it's toxic to itself; it self corrects to rot, and has 100% of the time in history.
avatar
GameRager: Out of all the systems proposed throughout history it's the best we as a species have come up with........so saying it's the better system is kinda true. The best system in theory and if held to the letter of the definition and ideal though....though this is never the case with any political system.
avatar
lukipela: How is it the best? Unless you are defining best by longest lasting, you are fooling yourself. And the only reason it lasts a long time is because it gives the unwashed masses the idea that they have some say, so they dont revolt.
It's the best because there is no better alternative.
I don't think it really matters when you take into consideration a point of view of a single person, wheter it's two party system, or it's multi-party system; in the end, a single voter usually doesn't get what he was voting for.

But when you look at it from a different view, you'll see that every huge country in it's time of greatness was ruled by one party without coalition party (or by one ruler). Those countries who went into multi-party system are loosing their ability for a quick government response, when it's needed.

When you have multi-party system, it always weaken the country. In extreme cases it ends up with Belgium scenario, where they can't create a government almost a year after the election.
Post edited May 09, 2011 by SLP2000
avatar
SLP2000: snip
Conversely, you have another example from here, where decisions can be made quickly only if they are along party lines; if a single party holds the majority of seats in all branches, then you get a quick (and often terrible) decision. Unless it's a national emergency (and even then only rarely), it's actually best to impede legislation and executive decision as much as possible.
Yeah, but when majority of voters don't approve those decisions, they know who's to blame. With multi-party system there's always someone to blame (i.e. coalition party).
Here in germany we tried some alternatives and they ended in a collective disaster, so from experience, democracy was the only good thing we ever had as a government.

I would never ever want to miss democracy because I feel that in any other system I would be worse off.

And not going to vote always means that you let others decide for yourself. Bad idea. If I would decide for you, be assured, that I would not decide in your best interest but in mine. So having a vote that actually counts should be in everybodys vital interest.

And to those who prefer the alternatives, please go to china and feel the difference, once they take your land without proper compensation and filter your internet traffic and read your private messages, I want to hear your opinion again. (Also there democracy fails, but not that much.)
Post edited May 09, 2011 by Trilarion
avatar
StingingVelvet: It's the best because there is no better alternative.
avatar
lukipela: No better alternative based off what criteria?
Based on the fact other forms of government are worse according to the vast majority of people I would guess.
avatar
lukipela: snip
US are not "massive lumbering dinosaur when it comes to change or responding" from a point of view of someone who lives in Europe.