Russian elections

[Angus]

Let me get this straight - the Americans, the UK and the Irish media, together with official sources are all carrying stories of "...concern..." about the validity of the Russian elections ?

Now, I know very little about the Russian electoral process but what I do know is:

US

The last 2 US elections have been a farce. 2000 was obvious for the Florida shambles but in both cases, and indeed in every US election, there is (allegedly !!) staggering abuses of the system. The source of this is that the local state powers can and do appoint party lackies as electoral officers. The result is arbitrary culling of voter rolls, massive queuing in areas not favourable to the rulking party etc etc etc etc etc

UK

Clearly the most daft electoral system. In the last election, the Tories got more votes than Labour in England, but ended up with about 100 fewer seats in England !!

Ireland

Mind boggling inaccuracy in the electoral register calls any election here into question.


The Russian process may be flawed - I don't know - but of anybody who can legitimately call anybodys process into question, these 3 countries have some brass neck....

[Dodge]

Don't think the UK example is a good one in fairness. Nothing wrong with labour winning 3 seats by ten votes while tories winning one by a thousand.

[Angus]

Don't think the UK example is a good one in fairness. Nothing wrong with labour winning 3 seats by ten votes while tories winning one by a thousand.

I take your point, which is valid. I would, however, argue that there is actually something wrong with your example, but that is for a different thread !!

[OneRedArmy]

I think the concerns about Russia are about intimidation and people not being free to exercise their vote rather than procedural issues.

But I do take the point about the US being able to lecture anyone on democracy.

[Aberdonian Stu]

I take your point, which is valid. I would, however, argue that there is actually something wrong with your example, but that is for a different thread !!

Actually his example is pretty apt. Labour majorities are, on average, several thousand less than those of the Tories. I don't have figures for 2005 but in 2001 a Tory majority was typically 6,000 votes more than a Labour majority.

[Angus]

Actually his example is pretty apt. Labour majorities are, on average, several thousand less than those of the Tories. I don't have figures for 2005 but in 2001 a Tory majority was typically 6,000 votes more than a Labour majority.

But this is preciely my point (which was clearly articulated badly). It is clearly anti democratic, in the purest sense, if more people vote for A, but B gets elected, irrespective of the systematic peculiarities that bring about that outcome - it is simply wrong.

[Dodge]

But this is preciely my point (which was clearly articulated badly). It is clearly anti democratic, in the purest sense, if more people vote for A, but B gets elected, irrespective of the systematic peculiarities that bring about that outcome - it is simply wrong.

But they don't have straight party v party presidential style elections. A lot of local and personality issues come into it when people are voting for the person they want to represent them in parliament.

I don't think you cna even compare them to the presidential elections elsewhere

[pete]

I think it is mostly due to lazy media. Most seem to just copy wire services.

I think you are correct that the US does not have a right to lecture any one. Irish system a mess too.

[dcfcsteve]

But this is preciely my point (which was clearly articulated badly). It is clearly anti democratic, in the purest sense, if more people vote for A, but B gets elected, irrespective of the systematic peculiarities that bring about that outcome - it is simply wrong.

In terms of electoral influence - A Labour vote is worth more than a Tory vote, and both are worth a lot more than a Lib Dem vote.

It's wrong, however, to claim that Labour got less votes but about 100 seats more than the Tories in England. The Tories are almost always the single biggest Westminster party in England - even during poor electoral periods for them. Labour only has a national majority of 62, but their Westminster dominance in Scotland and Wales delivers them a majority in Britain. They achieved this majority (66 seats in 2005) with only 35.5% of the national vote.

I personally agree with your assessment of the UK parliamentary election system as beign wrong, and the introduction of PR voting into the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh assemblies, as well as its use in local elections in Scotland and European elections nationwide, would seem to support that view. But there is more than one way of running an election and counting votes, so the UK system is only arguably 'undemocratic' or 'wrong'.

The US is in no position whatsoever to lecture any country on democracy, as their system is riddled with inaccuracies, flaws and downright scurrilous practices.

[Angus]

In terms of electoral influence - A Labour vote is worth more than a Tory vote, and both are worth a lot more than a Lib Dem vote.

It's wrong, however, to claim that Labour got less votes but about 100 seats more than the Tories in England. The Tories are almost always the single biggest Westminster party in England - even during poor electoral periods for them. Labour only has a national majority of 62, but their Westminster dominance in Scotland and Wales delivers them a majority in Britain. They achieved this majority (66 seats in 2005) with only 35.5% of the national vote.

I personally agree with your assessment of the UK parliamentary election system as beign wrong, and the introduction of PR voting into the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh assemblies, as well as its use in local elections in Scotland and European elections nationwide, would seem to support that view. But there is more than one way of running an election and counting votes, so the UK system is only arguably 'undemocratic' or 'wrong'.

The US is in no position whatsoever to lecture any country on democracy, as their system is riddled with inaccuracies, flaws and downright scurrilous practices.

IN DETAIL
Party Seats Gain Loss Net Votes % +/-%
Labour 286 0 -37 -37 8,043461 35.4 -6.0
Conservative 194 +32 -3 +29 8,116,005 35.7 +0.5
Lib Dem 47 +12 -5 +7 5,201,286 22.9 +3.6
Respect 1 1 0 1 67,422 0.3 +0.3
IKHH 1 0 0 0 18,739 0.1 0.0
UKIP 0 0 0 0 592,417 2.6 +0.9
Green 0 0 0 0 251,051 1.1 +0.4
BNP 0 0 0 0 189,570 0.8 +0.6
Veritas 0 0 0 0 39,044 0.2 +0.2
Lib 0 0 0 0 17,547 0.1 0.0
Others 0 0 0 0 177,343 0.8 N/A

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vot...ml/england.stm

I know this is hard to read but at the risk of being pedantic this shows Labour getting 286 seats with 8m votes while the Tories got 194 seats with 8.1m votes.

[superfrank]

Russian opposition doing themselves no favours. The chess guy (can't think of his name) encouraged his followers to spoil their votes in a sign of protest.

Last I heard, United Russia won 62.8% of the vote. Now I'm not sure if the 100% includes the spoiled vote but if the 37.2% was all unspoiled votes then surely there is a case for taking part properly instead of condemning yourselves before the vote takes place.

[dcfcsteve]

IN DETAIL
Party Seats Gain Loss Net Votes % +/-%
Labour 286 0 -37 -37 8,043461 35.4 -6.0
Conservative 194 +32 -3 +29 8,116,005 35.7 +0.5
Lib Dem 47 +12 -5 +7 5,201,286 22.9 +3.6
Respect 1 1 0 1 67,422 0.3 +0.3
IKHH 1 0 0 0 18,739 0.1 0.0
UKIP 0 0 0 0 592,417 2.6 +0.9
Green 0 0 0 0 251,051 1.1 +0.4
BNP 0 0 0 0 189,570 0.8 +0.6
Veritas 0 0 0 0 39,044 0.2 +0.2
Lib 0 0 0 0 17,547 0.1 0.0
Others 0 0 0 0 177,343 0.8 N/A

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vot...ml/england.stm

I know this is hard to read but at the risk of being pedantic this shows Labour getting 286 seats with 8m votes while the Tories got 194 seats with 8.1m votes.

Can't argue with that, so my mistake.

I knew that Labour had pipped the Tories in England last time (hence why I said 'almost always' in terms of the Tories being biggest in England) but am shocked to see it's a majority of 92 (90 now).

Feck the Tories though - from those figures you need 4 times the size of vote to elect a Lib Dem MP over a Labour one. Regardless, first past the post (FPTP) is still a democratic system of voting. An imperfect one, yes - and one that I would never support - but all voting systems have imperfections.

The plus-sides of FPTP are that it has a higher propensity to deliver stable government than most PR models, it has a clear link between MP and constituency (which you don't get under some systems of PR), and it doesn't give the balance of power to small minority interests, as often happens under PR (e.g. the PD's, Greens, Labour etc in Ireland). The biggest downsides are that it means that not everyone's vote is worth the same, and it reduces the complex range of political ideas/support down to a very small number of party options (i.e. 2).

[Macy]

First past the post isn't undemocratic or wrong. It's just different. A PR gives disproportionate power to small parties or even individuals (as in post 97) when it comes to forming Government, which could equally be argued is undemocratic.

Another factor that is over looked in this country is that 3 seat consituencies effect the true proportionality of our elections. Rather than two 3 seaters you get better proportionality with a 6 seater - time for a referendum to allow it, but then the FF turkeys are hardly going to allow us to vote for Christmas.

I thought one of the problems with the Russian elections was how United Russia manipulated the list system - packed it with high profile politicians unlikely to take their seats in the Duma?

[dcfcsteve]

I thought one of the problems with the Russian elections was how United Russia manipulated the list system - packed it with high profile politicians unlikely to take their seats in the Duma?

If they put high profile politicians on the list, and people vote for them because that's what they want, then what's the problem ?

The leaders of United Russia have only a limited grasp and interest in democracy, but let's not forget either that Russia is in better shape now than at any time since the collapse of communism, and people give Putin/UR the credit for that. So no huge surprise that they vote for them.

I would hope/expect there's a minimum threshold of attendance to not automatically be disqualified form the Duma, as there is for most parliaments, councils, assemblies etc.

[OneRedArmy]

but let's not forget either that Russia is in better shape now than at any time since the collapse of communism,

I'd amend that to
Russia is in better ECONOMIC shape now than at any time since the collapse of communism,

and thats pretty much down to the price of oil.

In all other measures its worse off.

[Macy]

If they put high profile politicians on the list, and people vote for them because that's what they want, then what's the problem ?

I'm not that well read up on it, but it's either that they aren't going to take the seats or they allow a dual mandate so it'll be the same people heading up the regional and national systems.

[dcfcsteve]

I'd amend that to
Russia is in better ECONOMIC shape now than at any time since the collapse of communism,

and thats pretty much down to the price of oil.

In all other measures its worse off.

The country's at least better in morale terms and international status/power as well.

International status has improved primarily due to the price of energy (it's not just oil - gas is hugely important to the Russian economy, as shown when they turned the tap off to 'punish' some of their neighbours).

The economic uplift in the country has combined with ending the disastrous war with Chechnya to improve overall morale. Getting out of the expensive Chechnya war has also helped economically, and in international status/power as well.

It's very easy for us to sit over here and wag fingers at Russia. the country does not function as a true democracy - yes. But the existing government is also more popular than it is often given credit for in the Western media.

[OneRedArmy]

The country's at least better in morale terms and international status/power as well.

International status has improved primarily due to the price of energy (it's not just oil - gas is hugely important to the Russian economy, as shown when they turned the tap off to 'punish' some of their neighbours).

The economic uplift in the country has combined with ending the disastrous war with Chechnya to improve overall morale. Getting out of the expensive Chechnya war has also helped economically, and in international status/power as well.

It's very easy for us to sit over here and wag fingers at Russia. the country does not function as a true democracy - yes. But the existing government is also more popular than it is often given credit for in the Western media.

Steve morale is essentially a short-term drug.

Morale was great amongst all the miners and prospectors during the California gold rush too but historically it was meaningless.

Putin's attempt to undo the national embarrassment that was caused by the breakup of the USSR and the loss of the Cold War whilst understandable is misdirected. Its the geopolitical equivalent of stalking an ex-girlfriend who has long since moved on.

[Dodge]

I'd amend that to
Russia is in better ECONOMIC shape now than at any time since the collapse of communism,

and thats pretty much down to the price of oil.

In all other measures its worse off.

Anyone else think a poster called OneRedArmy harking back to the days of communist reign in the USSR is hillarious?

[pete]

I'd amend that to
Russia is in better ECONOMIC shape now than at any time since the collapse of communism,

and thats pretty much down to the price of oil.

In all other measures its worse off.

They can at least feed their people now. They might have poverty but so so all countries.

Even if he has manipulated the media Putin does appear to be genuinely populate - Russians seem to like the strong leader type who flexes his muscles around the World - George Bush would do well there.