Election rigging - UK Edition

[Imploding Turtle]

Like I've said before, the US leads the way and we follow. In the US this is called Gerrymandering and is how Democrats can win 55% of the vote over 45% for Republicans and yet still not get a majority. It is what has led extremist lawmakers in congress and will lead to extremist lawmakers here.

If this is accurate, and these proposals are put into place, how can we claim to be a democracy? **** FPTP.

[Clarets4me]

Labour have had an inbuilt advantage in the system for decades, the Electoral Commission is supposedly independent ....

[Imploding Turtle]

Labour have had an inbuilt advantage in the system for decades, the Electoral Commission is supposedly independent ....

Because of FPTP. Like i've said, this isn't democracy. We don't decide our government, the two main partied take turns and there's nothing we can do about it unless we change the election system, and the only way we can change the election system is if the two main parties let us.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Because of FPTP. Like i've said, this isn't democracy. We don't decide our government, the two main partied take turns and there's nothing we can do about it unless we change the election system, and the only way we can change the election system is if the two main parties let us.

Which of course they will never do. Not a shred of integrity in either party

[mdd2]

So the vote on AV in 2011 and the subsequent rejection of it to keep first-past-the-post was nothing to do with democracy where 55% of voters didn't cast an opinion other than not to give one means nothing?
The chance to change the way we elect Government in the UK was rejected. About 30% no the AV, 15% change to AV and 55% had no view expressed as they didn't cast their vote.
The electorate had an opportunity to change from FPTP but didn't take it. So maybe it is the electorate who have no integrity as the 2010 election result gave it a chance to change matters due to the disproportionate power of the Lib-dems at the time forcing Cameron and his cronies to hold the referendum

[hampsteadclaret]

Too much of the electorate is apathetic about Politics, and it could be argued that they deserve what they get.

Then again, when you look at the average quality/value/integrity of our politicians, that becomes more understandable.

British Politics is in a shocking state, on a number of levels - it's probably 'unfixable'..

[Caballo]

In a shock development the party in power fiddle with the electoral boundaries in an attempt to cling on at the next election.

[Lancasterclaret]

Labour still thinks it can win a landslide again, as do the Conservatives.

Until that changes, then there won't be any electoral reform and we will continue to get the governments we deserve.

The whole AV referendum campaign summed up what was wrong with UK politics to be perfectly honest.

[Hipper]

Right, we no what's wrong.

What is right AND how do we realistically get there?

[Dark Cloud]

Every politician should be "independent". It's the reliance on a party system which creates 95% of the flaws and issues in any electoral programme imo. It then causes politicians to "toe the party line" in parliament or wherever, even if personally they don't agree with it. Properly independent politicians would mean the end of the 2 party (or however many party) ding dong.

[Imploding Turtle]

So the vote on AV in 2011 and the subsequent rejection of it to keep first-past-the-post was nothing to do with democracy where 55% of voters didn't cast an opinion other than not to give one means nothing?
The chance to change the way we elect Government in the UK was rejected. About 30% no the AV, 15% change to AV and 55% had no view expressed as they didn't cast their vote.
The electorate had an opportunity to change from FPTP but didn't take it. So maybe it is the electorate who have no integrity as the 2010 election result gave it a chance to change matters due to the disproportionate power of the Lib-dems at the time forcing Cameron and his cronies to hold the referendum

Do you remember the lies the Conservatives (and possibly Labour) had to peddle to win that vote? Do you remember how they told everyone how unfair it would be for some people to get multiple votes? The way that campaign was run was even more shameful than the campaigns for the EU referendum.

And then, as predicted, those ***** had the nerve to claim that it was validation of FPTP.

[Chobulous]

The problem with AV was that it was too complicated, nobody could be arsed with it. It never had a chance of being adopted. Even PR would fall into that trap. Any real change in the voting system would need a long consultation period (for want of a better phrase) in order to ensure that it had the best chance of being fully understood. The problem with that is that the electorate would get fed up long before the consultation period was over. FPTP is fundamentally flawed but it is simple and easy to understand to most people. Anything new would have to get past that obstacle.

[dsr]

Like I've said before, the US leads the way and we follow. In the US this is called Gerrymandering and is how Democrats can win 55% of the vote over 45% for Republicans and yet still not get a majority. It is what has led extremist lawmakers in congress and will lead to extremist lawmakers here.

If this is accurate, and these proposals are put into place, how can we claim to be a democracy? **** FPTP.

Who's the "I" who's been playing?

[Imploding Turtle]

Who's the "I" who's been playing?

Why are you asking me? You do this a lot, ask me questions knowing that I'm not the correct person to be asking.

[dsr]

Why are you asking me? You do this a lot, ask me questions knowing that I'm not the correct person to be asking.

Sorry. I didn't realise you didn't know anything about your own post.

Who is the correct person to ask about the provenance of a comment that you have posted?

[Imploding Turtle]

Sorry. I didn't realise you didn't know anything about your own post.

Who is the correct person to ask about the provenance of a comment that you have posted?

You're asking me who made the Twitter post as if it's something I should know. And now you're sneering at me for not knowing the name of the person posting from a company Twitter account?

If you want to know who is posting on behalf of a twitter account then send the twitter account a direct message asking them.
Learn how to direct your enquiries more optimally. It's a fairly basic life skill, i'm surprised you haven't yet mastered it. Unless of course you wanted to ask me a question you knew I couldn't possibly answer. Ah, there we are. I think we've figured it out.

[dsr]

I'm not learning anything about life skills from you. Whatever else I may want to learn, it's not how to be like you.

The point was - clearly I need to make it obvious - that you have come up with a tweet from someone (an organisation) I have never heard of but you have, and you have used it as evidence that FPPP is an unsuitable system for elections. I assumed from that (presumably wrongly) that you knew who they were. Do you?

[IanMcL]

Labour have had an inbuilt advantage in the system for decades, the Electoral Commission is supposedly independent ....

They are independent but work with the detail and 'preferred' realignment supplied by the authority/Government. If that 'work's', it would be largely unaltered.

Gerrymandering has to be proved and as there has been no election....

[scouseclaret]

This is nothing new. In 1951, Labour became the only party in British political history to poll more than 50% of the vote - but still lost!

Both the UK and US electoral systems are an affront to democracy.

[Rick_Muller]

what this country needs is a proper revolution

[South West Claret.]

what this country needs is a proper revolution

I think evolution is probably better for this Island RM but that’s just my opinion.

Party Politics was fine up until let’s say for argument sake just after the 2nd world war when most of the Politicians had fought together in the forces so there was a very strong national consensus between the major Party’s after the war was over.

But gradually that consensus has given way to “Interests” on the right in this Country towards large and multinational Employers.

So to bring things back into a more reasonable run Country one way is for the Party system to be shown up for what it is and at the same time an Independent approach to voting should be employed.

There has been a “scatter gun” attempt by individuals over the years to put this into operation which have succeeded for a time i.e. at Tatton, Kidderminster and in Wales so it can and has been done before.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The only way to change anything in this country is voting for someone outside of the main 2-3 parties.

[Clarets4me]

If MP's had been sent to Parliament based on the share of the National vote in 2015, then UKIP would have had 82 of the 650 MP's elected.
This would have been enough for them to have held the balance of power, and this Board would have made for very interesting reading, as certain posters would have gone into complete meltdown ....

[dsr]

This is nothing new. In 1951, Labour became the only party in British political history to poll more than 50% of the vote - but still lost!

Both the UK and US electoral systems are an affront to democracy.

48.8%, according to Wikipedia. Conservatives 48.0%, Liberals 2.5%. And it was even closer than that, because 4 Ulster Unionists (who were basically Irish conservatives) were elected unopposed so got no votes at all. Add the 166,000 votes they got in the replay the year after, and it's a very close result indeed.

[Clarets4me]

To lighten the mood, I remember reading the obituary of Jim Molyneaux, the Ulster Unionist MP for South Antrim.

Prior to the February 1974 Election, he was chatting in the Commons to a nervous Conservative MP who was not at all confident of retaining his marginal seat with his small majority of around 1,700. " How's your chances, Jim ? " the Tory enquired, " What's your majority ? " .... Molyneaux paused for a moment, " My majority's 39, but I think I'll be OK ". The other MP apologised " My dear fellow, I'm so sorry, here am I going on about my problems when you must ..... " . Touching his fellow MP gently on the arm, Jim Molyneaux interrupted, " Thousand, my majority is 39,000 ! "

[walter the softy]

The only way to change anything in this country is voting for someone outside of the main 2-3 parties.

Part of the reason people do not vote for someone outside the main parties is because of First Past The Post. If you want to vote for a smaller party in a lot of wards you night as well just throw your vote in the dustbin.

[South West Claret.]

Part of the reason people do not vote for someone outside the main parties is because of First Past The Post. If you want to vote for a smaller party in a lot of wards you night as well just throw your vote in the dustbin.

Read Post 21 WTS..the Party system has fallen into disrepute so "True Independents" is the way forward now IMHO.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Part of the reason people do not vote for someone outside the main parties is because of First Past The Post. If you want to vote for a smaller party in a lot of wards you night as well just throw your vote in the dustbin.

Sorry, I forgot to add it would need a mass change in voting in the UK.

Will never happen though because majority of people are so far entrenched with their political views they can't see past their party.

[walter the softy]

If MP's had been sent to Parliament based on the share of the National vote in 2015, then UKIP would have had 82 of the 650 MP's elected.
This would have been enough for them to have held the balance of power, and this Board would have made for very interesting reading, as certain posters would have gone into complete meltdown ....

Much as I am opposed to UKIP policies generally, it is surely wrong that they did not get represented after the 2015 election in anyway close to the vote they received.

Besides which, I think that UKIP having to actually take positions of responsibility would have been of a death knell for them as people would have been able to see beyond the rhetoric.

[gtclaret]

A few points.
1 As already stated, a a chance to end fptp system was given to the electorate in2010 and was rejected. The argument above the low turnout somehow invalidating the result, would apply to every council election and some bye elections. The argument that the electorate were misled would apply to every election in history.
2,There is no evidence that PR produces better or more accountable Governments, in fact, it gives too much power to the minority parties and we end up with a government nobody wants.
3 The majority of those who want PR ( The Lib Dems)
also want to stay in the EU which undermines the democracy they claim they want to protect.
4 Margaret Thatcher was the first to interfere with the Boundary Commission, Tony Blair continued this as he did with many of her policies

[gtclaret]

[quote="walter the softy"]Much as I am opposed to UKIP policies generally, it is surely wrong that they did not get represented after the 2015 election in anyway close to the vote they received.

Besides which, I think that UKIP having to actually take positions of responsibility would have been of a death knell for them as people would have been able to see beyond the rhetoric.[/quote
The fact that a Party with just 82 of the 650 MP's should have positions of responsibility shows just how flawed PR is

[bluelabrador16]

Despical case of Gerrymandering in Derry.

1967 Population.....Catholics/Nationalists.....14,429

Prostestants/Unionists..... 8,781


Split into...3 Wards....
North...P/U...........majority....8 seats
South...C/N...........majority....8 seats
Waterdide....P/U....majority....4 seats

The Prostestants/Unionists with 37.8% of the pop end up with 60% of the seats in the Derry Corporation.

A recipe for Trouble!

Gerrymandering in Londonderry in the late 1960s

"Robert Kee narrates a brief summary of gerrymandering in Londonderry in the late 1960s, explaining how the voting wards in the city were split to preserve majority representation for Protestants in terms of seats on the Derry Corporation despite the large Catholic voting majority."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00nm4gy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Clarets4me]

" The fact that a Party with just 82 of the 650 MP's should have positions of responsibility shows just how flawed PR is "

Perfectly possible with FPTP, Nick Clegg and Vince Cable in the Coalition Government, for example !!

[Imploding Turtle]

The fact that a Party with just 82 of the 650 MP's should have positions of responsibility shows just how flawed PR is

So a better solution to that "problem" is to have a party receive 3% of the vote get 35 MPs while a party with 7.4% of the vote gets 12 MPs. Not to mention that a party with a minority of the vote get 100% control of government. Is that a better option?

Why shouldn't a party with 82 MPs receive positions of responsibility anyway? What's wrong with that?

[gtclaret]

So a better solution to that "problem" is to have a party receive 3% of the vote get 35 MPs while a party with 7.4% of the vote gets 12 MPs. Not to mention that a party with a minority of the vote get 100% control of government. Is that a better option?

Why shouldn't a party with 82 MPs receive positions of responsibility anyway? What's wrong with that?

I will tell you what's wrong with it. Until the last 2 elections strong governments were formed with 40% of the vote, which was fatr more than any other party got. They were held accountable as they were the only party in power. With PR you get a hash bag of parties the ingredients are not known until after the election where the self interest leaders of several parties invent a mandate in secret that nobody voted for. When anything goes wrong they blame each other. Furthermore if the election is held in difficult times, why would a smaller party want to be part of a government which will have to make unpopular decisions like raising taxes and cutting public services. The Lib Democrats paid a very heavy price for that

[Imploding Turtle]

I will tell you what's wrong with it. Until the last 2 elections strong governments were formed with 40% of the vote, which was fatr more than any other party got. They were held accountable as they were the only party in power. With PR you get a hash bag of parties the ingredients are not known until after the election where the self interest leaders of several parties invent a mandate in secret that nobody voted for. When anything goes wrong they blame each other. Furthermore if the election is held in difficult times, why would a smaller party want to be part of a government which will have to make unpopular decisions like raising taxes and cutting public services. The Lib Democrats paid a very heavy price for that

Explain to me why a strong government is more important than a democratically representative government?

[gtclaret]

Explain to me why a strong government is more important than a democratically representative government?

All governments are democratically elected. The political chaos we currently have would be the norm with PR. It would not be possible to address the concerns or wishes of the population. It would represent nobody. It would give crackpot parties such as the BNP or some Islamic extreme party to get a slice of the action
I Think it was Winston Churchill who said that we have the best of all the bad systems

[Imploding Turtle]

All governments are democratically elected. The political chaos we currently have would be the norm with PR. It would not be possible to address the concerns or wishes of the population. It would represent nobody. It would give crackpot parties such as the BNP or some Islamic extreme party to get a slice of the action
I Think it was Winston Churchill who said that we have the best of all the bad systems

No it wouldn't be the norm. It would force parties to talk to each other and compromise. FPTP allows parties to try to rule alone and allows them to force through more extreme agendas. The reason there's this chaos now is because one party is trying to run the country as if it has a comfortable majority because they don't know how to reach across the aisle and compromise, and the other party isn't really interested in compromise either because it looks bad for the party in power.

[tiger76]

No it wouldn't be the norm. It would force parties to talk to each other and compromise. FPTP allows parties to try to rule alone and allows them to force through more extreme agendas. The reason there's this chaos now is because one party is trying to run the country as if it has a comfortable majority because they don't know how to reach across the aisle and compromise, and the other party isn't really interested in compromise either because it looks bad for the party in power.

I don't disagree about both major parties not compromising,but is that the fault of the system or the current politicians,possibly both,in 2010 Labour and the Conservatives had to make concessions to the LibDems to get a coalition agreement,but back then both of their leaders where more moderate and centre-ground.

The 2017 General Election arguably gave the DUP''S 10 MP'S too much influence,so there is no perfect system,some form of PR might force more sensible ideas to emerge but that's not certain.

[Imploding Turtle]

I don't disagree about both major parties not compromising,but is that the fault of the system or the current politicians,possibly both,in 2010 Labour and the Conservatives had to make concessions to the LibDems to get a coalition agreement,but back then both of their leaders where more moderate and centre-ground.

The 2017 General Election arguably gave the DUP''S 10 MP'S too much influence,so there is no perfect system,some form of PR might force more sensible ideas to emerge but that's not certain.

The current system rewards the uncompromising behaviour of politicians, therefore we get uncompromising politicians. If there was a system in place that rewarded compromise then we'd have politicians who compromised.

[dsr]

All governments are democratically elected. The political chaos we currently have would be the norm with PR. It would not be possible to address the concerns or wishes of the population. It would represent nobody. It would give crackpot parties such as the BNP or some Islamic extreme party to get a slice of the action
I Think it was Winston Churchill who said that we have the best of all the bad systems

Churchill's quote was "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others which have been tried from time to time". (Even then, he was quoting from an unnamed source.) He wasn't specifically referring to first past the post; but he was emphasising that democracy still isn't perfect.

The general conclusion is that there are advantages both ways. Advantages of pure proportional representation - the views of the House as closely as possible represent the views of the country. Advantages of first past the post - you get a definite result more often than not, and you get an MP responsible to his own local constituents. It's swings and roundabouts - this has been weighed in the balance for centuries, and the PR arguments have never been strong enough to come close to forcing change.

[AndrewJB]

If FPTP were so democratic, there would be other countries looking to implement it. A system that can produce a majority government out of thirty-odd percent of the national vote is a system that can be gamed. Whether it be 'white van man' or 'Hereford woman' the outcome of an election can be determined by a tiny sliver of the population. Compared to this PR produces infinitely more fair results.