There are 3 broad systems which I am most familiar with, none of which I view as being democratic.
The Irish Republic system, on paper, is the closest to a democratic system but in its implementation and execution it fails miserably. The state of the electorla register is a national disgrace and the PR system inherently overvalues smaller parties.
By way of example in the election befroe last, the PD's lost votes but ended up with greater power, based on the electoral maths.
The UK system is staggering - in the last election, in England, the Tories got more votes than Labour but got 100 seats less.
The US system is criminally exposed to corruption and is criminally infested by corruption.
All 3 have major problems in the simple task of counting votes.
Democracy is now effectively a game by which there is, in effect, a sporting contest among political professionals to manipulate imperfect systems, imperfect counting mechanisms, imperfect structures with a view to manipulating our votes to achieve their desired results.
Why do we put up with this ?
DB Cooper is alive !
I'd say; stupidity; ambivalence; feeling of powerlessness; looking after one's own lot and not caring for broader pictures; reverence of status quo/ingrained mentalities.Originally Posted by Angus
Surely some politics/statistics student has done a thesis on the 'perfect' model before??
Politicians will adapt to the electoral style.
The electorate accept the result if it broadly reflects the populace. Other choses of electoral systems are the two-part polls in France and when they are allowed have them Algeria. This allows for small parties to get a voice in the run-up to the first poll but the major winners run off against each other in round two. Also polls on a Sunday help to improve turn-out and show respect towards the electorate.
" I'll go right up to here,
it can't possibly hurt.
All they will find is my
beer and my shirt."
We live in a dictatorship. They dictate, we accept without question.
The above is all opinion and based on personal experience. Unless stated otherwise it is not a dig at anybody, well probably none of you lot.
...maybe - if you believe in straightforward majoritism. While tails wagging dogs goes against the spirit of democracy it only does so to the same extent as giving majorities a stick with which to beat minorities.
Would first past the post be fairer here? Hardly.
Why were FF so keen to dump PR for it at one stage? I'll guess it's because they'd permanently be in power, untethered by a coalition partner, (though perhaps loosing some of the flat cap indies'd be no harm) with only 30-odd% percent of the electorate voting for them.
Define "greater power". More importantly -who bestowed/negotiated this "greater power"? I suggest your compalint is with them and the people who voted them into that negotiating position ...not neccessarily with the system.
That's news to me. I'd heard it about the US election alright but it's common enough there.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
The point about the English system is one they've started to question themselves, especially, as the Tories point out, they are still the biggest party in England, but haven't been in power in 11 years.
America's system confuses American pollsters so let's not get into that, but when something like Florida 2000 happens and people just accept it you begin to realise that humans have been completely conditioned to accept anything that happens and move on with minimal fuss.
The Irish system is a fair one in my opinion. Sure the PDs should be nowhere near government, but that's Fianna Fail's fault, not the electoral system's. As has been said, if we switched to a first past the post style race then we may as well just abolish national elections and give Fianna Fail the keys for life
Well, it depends on the size of the state. The larger the state the more indirect the democracy. During Athens' golden age as a city state they had a very direct form of democracy with involvement from all citizens. With the size of even small modern states, whose populations number in millions, it's not feasible to have any more a direct involvement by the citizens.
The state of the electoral register is a disgrace, but it's kinda irrelevant in terms of the electoral system - it'd be the same whatever the system.
As for our PR there are a couple of things that could be tweaked.
1) Proper proportionality on surplus transfers rather than the random distribution now.
2) We have too many smaller constituencies which reduce the proportionality - we should be have a referendum to amend the constitution to allow 6 or 7 seater constituencies rather than 2 3 seaters or a 3 and 4.
Whilst some kind of list system would mean that candidates could focus on national issues rather than local ones, but there is something inherently unrepresentative about a system which the parties decide who's top of the list. For example, we'd probably still have Burke and Pee Flynn in the Dail if FF could've put them at the top of a list.
The PD's, the Greens and Independents are in a very weak position in this Government as each on their own aren't needed - i.e. if either walked out, the Government would stand.
Keeping the PD's in Government just proves that PD policy = FF policy. There is no requirement for the PD's in Government, but it suits them to have Harney destroying our public health system and privatising it instead (even if that means to the benefit of companies involved with her Husbands company (MRPA Kinman)). There is no reason for the PD's to be in Government, so any of your muppets that voted FF after believing the "it wasn't us, it was the PD's" bull remember that at the next election.
I don't think we do have a problem with counting votes - issues we have aren't to do with counting, it's to do with distribution. Spoiled votes have more to do with people not knowing how to complete the paper, or simply choosing to spoil their vote (as is their democratic right). Far less problems with our "auld pencil" system than the UK and US mechanical or electronic counting systems (ignoring the fact that our own e-voting experiment was in an inaccurate tally).
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
How would you know which transfers are surplus? Surely it all depends on where you start counting to decide which ones are the extras?
Right.
I assume you're one of the unregistered voters then?
---
The US system disgusts me. One voter has told me quite proudly that the system is set up so that a rural voter has more power in his single vote than a city dweller. Apparantly, to him, this stops the majority ruling and therefore is fairest. Also, it just so happens that the majority of rural voters vote Republican. How do the democrats not tear strips out of this?
Last edited by GavinZac; 14/02/2008 at 9:11 AM.
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
As it is now they just take the random one's that are left after a candidate has reached the quota, or take the above quota amount out. e.g. if the quota is 10,000 and the candidate has 11,500 a random 1,500 is transferred to the next preference.
If they transferred it proportionally, they'd tally all the next preferences of the whole 11,500, work out the percentages/proportions and then distribute the 1,500 based on those percentages.
imo it was one of the great failings of the e-voting system that was proposed that it didn't include this. Infact the software had to be re-written to take this feature out and replace it with a random selection for surpluses. It is my opinion that this was a deliberate tatic to make any print out/ hard copy back up unworkable (since you wouldn't know the random selection made how could you really do a manual check with the paper copy?)
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
The only possible solution for me to the surplus redistribution would be to start stockpiling the surplus votes once the candidate has reached the quota i.e. count the number ones up til 10,000, put them in one pile and then start a seperate pile for surplus votes.
I can't think of any other logical and truly democratic way without counting EVERY number one.
I do believe that the Irish PR system is fairer. Of course one simple way to not have your opponents voted in is to just give numbers to the candidates/party you like and stop when you get to the ones you dislike.
Extratime.ie
Yo te quiero, mi querida. Sin tus besos, yo soy nada.
Abri o portão de ouro, da maquina do tempo.
Mi mamá me hizo guapo, listo y antimadridista.
Actually did anyone see each state's voting breakdown map in the last US election? Every single state that I saw was completely red and had only tiny patches of blue where the cities are. I was astounded by that.The US system disgusts me. One voter has told me quite proudly that the system is set up so that a rural voter has more power in his single vote than a city dweller. Apparantly, to him, this stops the majority ruling and therefore is fairest. Also, it just so happens that the majority of rural voters vote Republican. How do the democrats not tear strips out of this?
My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method, is love. I love you Sheriff Truman.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks