SF-SDLP tied on 20%

Roisin Dubh

This poll would seem to indicate that predictions of a SF meltdown have been greatly exaggerated. But I suppose when you are feeeling occupied by a foreign power you are going to be distrustful of the Brits and the Unionists ganging up on a Nationalist party.What do you think on this?

Six out of 10 nationalists, including 44% of Sinn Fein voters, believe the IRA should disband immediately, a new poll commissioned by the BBC Newsnight programme and the Belfast Telegraph suggests.

The poll also indicated most nationalists believed the IRA should put all its weapons beyond use now, with 59% of Sinn Fein supporters backing the suggestion.

Of those polled, 61% of people thought the IRA carried out the Northern Bank raid.

Questioned about the response of the Sinn Fein leadership to the murder of the Belfast man Robert McCartney outside a city centre bar in January, 47% of people said they were dissatisfied.

The poll indicated 61% of people blamed the IRA for the raid

A total of 29% said they were satisfied with Sinn Fein's response - the rest didn't know.

The poll suggests the Democratic Unionist Party has established an increased lead over the Ulster Unionists and that Sinn Fein and the SDLP are level pegging in the battle for nationalist votes.

The poll, conducted at the start of this week, estimates DUP support at 28%, Sinn Fein at 20%, the SDLP at 20%, the UUP at 16% and Alliance at 4%.

The trend on the unionist side appears relatively clear. The DUP is up two and a half points in comparison to the assembly election of November 2003, and up 8% in comparison to a similar poll conducted earlier that month.

The UUP is down six and a half points in comparison to the assembly election and down 10 points in comparison to the poll.

On the nationalist side the picture is more confusing. In comparison to the 2003 assembly election, Sinn Fein appears to be down three and a half points and the SDLP up three points.

But in comparison to the pre-election poll in 2003, Sinn Fein have maintained the same level of support and the SDLP have dropped two points.

DUP leader Ian Paisley
Support for the DUP has increased since the assembly election

The pollsters, Millward Brown Ulster, say the poll does not suggest any huge slippage in the Sinn Fein vote although there may be some slight erosion in the party's middle class support.

The only conclusion they believe can be drawn is that the nationalist battle is very competitive.

The poll suggests Catholics and Protestants are divided about what the Secretary of State, Paul Murphy, should do now.

The option of bringing back the assembly but excluding Sinn Fein from ministerial positions was favoured by 43% of Protestants, while 47% of Catholics say Mr Murphy should bring back the assembly with the full participation of all parties.

Millward Brown Ulster interviewed a representative sample of 1010 Northern Ireland adults on Monday and Tuesday of this week.

All interviewing was face-to-face and was conducted at 56 randomly-selected points according to the standards of the Interview Quality Control Scheme and the Code of Conduct of the Market Research Society.

MT

I think Sinn Féin should be concerned about this poll. Prior to the break down in the most recent negotiations all the talk from pundits up here was that the SDLP would be completely eclipsed by their rival at the next election. This would simply be a continuation of a recent trend.

These statistics demonstrate that this movement in allegience on the nationalist side has been halted and even reversed. Considering how invisible the SDLP have been over the past year this represents a huge turnaround.

The question is will Sinn Féin slide further in the run up to the imminent elections? Just think, after May 5th they might find themselves once again languishing as only the minor party of NI's nationalist electorate. Indeed, they'll be hit even harder if any of the McCartney sisters choose to stand against them. If, as it's being rumoured, this occurs the SDLP have signalled their willingness to stand aside and throw their support behind whichever sisters are brave enough to come foward. For that matter, even Sammy Wilson has called on DUP supporters in the constituencies in question to give their votes to the McCartneys. It's going to be an interesting election.

Roisin Dubh

MT wrote:

I think Sinn Féin should be concerned about this poll. Prior to the break down in the most recent negotiations all the talk from pundits up here was that the SDLP would be completely eclipsed by their rival at the next election. This would simply be a continuation of a recent trend.

These statistics demonstrate that this movement in allegience on the nationalist side has been halted and even reversed. Considering how invisible the SDLP have been over the past year this represents a huge turnaround.

The question is will Sinn Féin slide further in the run up to the imminent elections? Just think, after May 5th they might find themselves once again languishing as only the minor party of NI's nationalist electorate. Indeed, they'll be hit even harder if any of the McCartney sisters choose to stand against them. If, as it's being rumoured, this occurs the SDLP have signalled their willingness to stand aside and throw their support behind whichever sisters are brave enough to come foward. For that matter, even Sammy Wilson has called on DUP supporters in the constituencies in question to give their votes to the McCartneys. It's going to be an interesting election.

Well I understand one of the McCartney's was threatening to stand in the local-elections rather than the General Election. If that is so, I don't think it would affect the NI-wide picture too much.

Also, the polls before the Assembly elections in 2003 also showed SDLP-SF on level pegging at 20%. So SF could still be ahead.

cdebru

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Well I understand one of the McCartney's was threatening to stand in the local-elections rather than the General Election. If that is so, I don't think it would affect the NI-wide picture too much.

Also, the polls before the Assembly elections in 2003 also showed SDLP-SF on level pegging at 20%. So SF could still be ahead.

if the polls are suggesting that sf and the sdlp are neck and neck then SF would appear to be still ahead
SFs vote is always underepresented in opinion polls for obvious reasons

on the RTE news the other day they had a poll from meath which SF on 14.9% which would be shocking as i would have tought they would have done well to hold onto the 9% in the last GE

Badabing

I think Fermanagh and s.tyrone will go unionist and west tyrone is up for grabs and foyle is and will very interesting with Mark durkan trying to hold onto john humes seat.

cdebru

Badabing wrote:

I think Fermanagh and s.tyrone will go unionist and west tyrone is up for grabs and foyle is and will very interesting with Mark durkan trying to hold onto john humes seat.

fermanagh south tyrone will depend on wether the dup and uup run canidates

west tyrone would need a massive swing from the sf to the sdlp which is not reflected in the polls

foyle would a need a massive swing the other the other way

Badabing

I agree about foyle, but west tyrone might change, because wille thompson was a poor m.p. and poor choice for the uup, if the unionists agree and get a strong candidate and the sdlp also pick a good candidate it could be neck and neck between pat doherty and whoever.

cdebru

Badabing wrote:

I agree about foyle, but west tyrone might change, because wille thompson was a poor m.p. and poor choice for the uup, if the unionists agree and get a strong candidate and the sdlp also pick a good candidate it could be neck and neck between pat doherty and whoever.

well the sdlp ran brid rodgers last time it is hard to see them finding a better more high profile candidate
there would have to be a near 50/50 split of the nationalist vote and the unionists would have to find another 2 or 3000 more votes to have a chance

also SF might be in with a shout of newry armagh

david trimble should be under pressure to hold his seat

Badabing

True, sdlp are struggling to find replacements for the old guard, all the stuff of the last couple weeks could hurt sinn fein, but conor murphy only needs 2000 or so extra votes to win newry, also is eddie mgcrady running in south down?

Roisin Dubh

on the RTE news the other day they had a poll from meath which SF on 14.9% which would be shocking as i would have tought they would have done well to hold onto the 9% in the last GE

Really? Do you have a link to that because I never heard that I must admit. That would be very surprising if true.

fermanagh south tyrone will depend on wether the dup and uup run canidates

It is a Nationalist seat if you add the Nationalist votes together. But it was really close last time. It would be a travesty for the Orange people to take that.

I agree about foyle, but west tyrone might change, because wille thompson was a poor m.p. and poor choice for the uup, if the unionists agree and get a strong candidate and the sdlp also pick a good candidate it could be neck and neck between pat doherty and whoever.

With John Hume leaving the scene the SDLP may be vulnerable. In Mid-Ulster, Martin McGuinness would need to lose 10,000 votes for the DUP to get in, assuming that both the UUP and DUP field candidates. The SDLP are not really in with a chance there because they only got 8,376 to SF's 25,502. In West Tyrone, I'm betting SF will hold it because they have a 5,000 majority there over the UUP, with the SDLP on 13,942. SF's support would need to collapse then for them to lose their seat. If the seat does fall it will be to the SDLP.

West Belfast will remain in SF's hands. I predict SDLP will hold Foyle and South Down.

Slutmonkey57b

Roisin Dubh wrote:

It is a Nationalist seat if you add the Nationalist votes together. But it was really close last time. It would be a travesty for the Orange people to take that.

Actually, it would be a democratic reflection of the community's wishes.
You might not agree with their choice, but that doesn't make it a travesty.

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

It is a Nationalist seat if you add the Nationalist votes together. But it was really close last time. It would be a travesty for the Orange people to take that.

"Orange people"? A "travesty" if the Nationalists dont win the election? Not a very nice choice of words for democratic elections, especially considering the infamous work of certain undemocratic people in this same constituency ( fermanagh south tyrone ) during the troubles.
Not everyone who does not vote for a Nationalist party is an "Orange person" or contributing to a travesty, thank you very much.

Roisin Dubh

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Actually, it would be a democratic reflection of the community's wishes.
You might not agree with their choice, but that doesn't make it a travesty.

No because even when Unionists controlled it, the combined Nationalist vote constituted an overall majority.

lawhec

Now I'm only a bowser of the polotics forum here, but as someone who lives in the West Tyrone area, for the time of the Westminster elections come (around two months) the tribal battlegrounds have a wildcard in the pack with Omagh Hospital campaginer Dr.Kieran Deeney having thrown his name in to the West Tyrone race. He stood at the last assembly elections which most pundits reckoned he might scrape through to take the last seat, but ended up topping the poll. The word going around is that the Dr will not match his same success but it'll be interesting to see what happens. He's the most unpredictable candidate running. Pat Doherty will be fighting to retain his seat, the SDLP are yet to decide on a candidate, while it looks like the UUP will field Derek Hussey and the DUP Thomas Buchanan - although if the two unionist parties reach a deal what'll probably happen is that Arlene Foster will be given a clear run in Fermanagh/South Tyrone and Derek Hussey will not have a DUP opponent.

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

No because even when Unionists controlled it, the combined Nationalist vote constituted an overall majority.

Thats politics. If a black man stands for election in say Germany or Holland or Sweden, and gets elected, do two of the unsuccessful parties complain that he should not have got elected, because their vote "constituted an overall majority".

Politics is politics. Besides, I know some Catholics there who vote Unionist. No doubt you do not like that Roisin, but thats democracy.

Roisin Dubh

true wrote:

"Orange people"? A "travesty" if the Nationalists dont win the election? Not a very nice choice of words for democratic elections, especially considering the infamous work of certain undemocratic people in this same constituency ( fermanagh south tyrone ) during the troubles.
Not everyone who does not vote for a Nationalist party is an "Orange person" or contributing to a travesty, thank you very much.

Well I don't see the use of the term as offensive, considering that Orange in the Irish Tricolour represents the Unionists/Protestants on this island.

Thats politics. If a black man stands for election in say Germany or Holland or Sweden, and gets elected, do two of the unsuccessful parties complain that he should not have got elected, because their vote "constituted an overall majority".

Politics is politics. Besides, I know some Catholics there who vote Unionist. No doubt you do not like that Roisin, but thats democracy.

The Southern electoral-system is democracy in its fullest sense, ensuring that a party with a minority of the popular vote in a constituency will find it very hard indeed to get a majority of seats in a multi-seat constituency. The one candidate elections in NI give the party that comes first the seat. I know which electoral system I consider my democratic and it isn't the one in the statelet.

MadsL

The one candidate elections in NI give the party that comes first the seat. I know which electoral system I consider my democratic and it isn't the one in the statelet.

As in the rest of the UK. The 'mother of Parlimentary Democracy' as it was once called...and the democratic system that most countries are modelled after.

Are you saying that the UK system is somehow 'undemocratic?' Or are you just having a Brit-bashing session??

cdebru

MadsL wrote:

As in the rest of the UK. The 'mother of Parlimentary Democracy' as it was once called...and the democratic system that most countries are modelled after.

Are you saying that the UK system is somehow 'undemocratic?' Or are you just having a Brit-bashing session??

the system of first past the post is undoubtedly undemocratic whether it is in the UK the USA or anywhere else

MadsL

the system of first past the post is undoubtedly undemocratic whether it is in the UK the USA or anywhere else

I don't want to take this thread offtopic, but you can hardly call it undemocratic - unfair, biased, establishment, oldfashioned it may be, but technically it is not 'undemocratic' until the people refuse to recognise the results it produces. Would you say that PR is wholly 'democratic' in that it is not equally unfair, biased, and establishment? By any world standards both systems are by nature democratic.

sceptre

cdebru wrote:

the system of first past the post is undoubtedly undemocratic whether it is in the UK the USA or anywhere else

It's not completely off-topic so I'll bite as a part-time devil's advocate.

Why? Obviously keeping in mind that "less representative" (or "less democratic" if you will, though it's less precise) is not the same thing as "undemocratic", why is "the system of FPTP undoubtedly undemocratic"?

I'd agree that simple STV or PR-STV (or a list system or a list system combined with another system) are inherently more representative but I can't see how FPTP is inherently undemocratic. I'm not just hair-splitting btw, it's not an insignificant difference.

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Well I don't see the use of the term (" Orange people" )as offensive, considering that Orange in the Irish Tricolour represents the Unionists/Protestants on this island.

Because that flag has being used to cover IRA bombers coffins , and generally hijacked by Sinn Fein / IRA, your reference to the Tricolour in this context would not be appreciated by all.

You do not hear the rest of us referring to " green people " , do you ? ...even though these same green people have been making the green part of the flag bigger and bigger and the orange or gold bit smaller . I thought the white inbetween was supposed to symbolise peace , and respect for the "orange" culture. You consider it a travesty ( your word, not mine ) if they win an election.

AmenToThat

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Really? Do you have a link to that because I never heard that I must admit. That would be very surprising if true.

I dont know who conducted the poll or when it was taken by Sky news used it on their 10 o clock Irish broadcast tonight and SF were shown as having 14.9% of those canvassed, two and a half per percent ahead of the Labour candidate.

cdebru

MadsL wrote:

I don't want to take this thread offtopic, but you can hardly call it undemocratic - unfair, biased, establishment, oldfashioned it may be, but technically it is not 'undemocratic' until the people refuse to recognise the results it produces. Would you say that PR is wholly 'democratic' in that it is not equally unfair, biased, and establishment? By any world standards both systems are by nature democratic.

the fact that it is all the things you mentioned makes it undemocratic

it prevents minority or smaller parties fair or sometimes any representation
it discriminates against minorities
it prevents people from voting for their preferred candidate
it is unrepresentative
it discourages people from voting

as an example gregory campbell in the last GE in the uk won his seat with 32.14% share of the vote that is less than one third of the electorate to suggest that someone who is the choice of less than a third of the people he represents is democratic is nonsense and a system thaat allows that is undemocratic

i picked gregory campbell because he had the lowest share of the vote not because he is DUP

michelle gildernew had 34.5%
david trimble had 33.5%


in fact of the 18 seats in the north only 5 had mps elected by the majority of the electorate

cdebru

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Really? Do you have a link to that because I never heard that I must admit. That would be very surprising if true.



.

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sg6SCoNVAriT6sgDQQ5wn3uAIg.asp

The poll results are Cassells (FF) 36.7%, McEntee (FG) 20.4%, (Reilly) SF 14.9%, Hannigan (Labour) 13.3%, Campbell (PDs) 7.6%, O'Byrne (GP) 5.5%, and O'Gogain (ind) 1.6%.

In the second count, O'Gogain and O'Byrne are eliminated (their transfers bring Hannigan above Reilly), Campbell is eliminated in the third, Reilly in the fourth and Hannigan in the fifth, who is just behind McEntee at that stage - the last effective count has FF on 48%, FG on 27% and Labour on 24%. FF takes the seat in the fifth count, to give it four out of five.

Compared to 2002, FF is down 8%, FG down 7%, and independents down 8%. Labour are up 9%, PDs up almost 8%, and SF up 5%.

Poll was based on sample ballot paper filled out by 500 voters last weekend by Orchard Research and Analysis(?). No indication of margin of error.

true

cdebru wrote:

the fact that it is all the things you mentioned makes it undemocratic




in fact of the 18 seats in the north only 5 had mps elected by the majority of the electorate

The people who were elected still had more votes than the people who were not elected. Does that make it undemocratic ? You say it does. Sounds like sour grapes to me. No system is perfect.

Roisin Dubh

true wrote:

Because that flag has being used to cover IRA bombers coffins , and generally hijacked by Sinn Fein / IRA, your reference to the Tricolour in this context would not be appreciated by all.

You do not hear the rest of us referring to " green people " , do you ? ...even though these same green people have been making the green part of the flag bigger and bigger and the orange or gold bit smaller . I thought the white inbetween was supposed to symbolise peace , and respect for the "orange" culture. You consider it a travesty ( your word, not mine ) if they win an election.

Loyalists also use the union flag when burrying their terrorists ,e.g. I think Billy Wright. Just because criminals hijack your national flag doesn't mean you should stop using it. Anyway, I don't see what the offense is in what I said. I remember a few years ago hearing a Unionist woman saying on TV "We are Orange people". Straight from the horses mouth (and no I am not calling Unionist women horses!). :rolleyes:

Oh and true, I am not saying it is a travesty for Unionists to have political representatives elected per se. Just that it is only right that Nationalist political representatives should hold majority Nationalist seats.

I am a Green person if that means nationalist and republican. I have no problem being called a Green person.

Why? Obviously keeping in mind that "less representative" (or "less democratic" if you will, though it's less precise) is not the same thing as "undemocratic", why is "the system of FPTP undoubtedly undemocratic"?

I'd agree that simple STV or PR-STV (or a list system or a list system combined with another system) are inherently more representative but I can't see how FPTP is inherently undemocratic. I'm not just hair-splitting btw, it's not an insignificant difference.

Well in the 1974 General Election in UK, Labour got fewer popular votes than the Tories but Labour won more seats. And in the US, a number of times presidents have been elected with fewer votes than their rivals. So I think cdebru is correct in his analysis.

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Loyalists also use the union flag when burrying their terrorists ,e.g. I think Billy Wright. Just because criminals hijack your national flag doesn't mean you should stop using it. Anyway, I don't see what the offense is in what I said. I remember a few years ago hearing a Unionist woman saying on TV "We are Orange people". Straight from the horses mouth (and no I am not calling Unionist women horses!). :rolleyes:

I think you think wrong about Billy Wright , but anyway in the case of the Irish flag you are taking a colour off it and using that colour to describe those who do not vote Nationalist, ( and in this particular case you say that if the "orange person " wins the election its a "travesty.")

You may have heard a Unionist woman on TV saying "we are orange people" , but perhaps she meant it in the context of an orange parade or something.
Orange to me means a reference to people who have an adherance to the Orange order, maybe I am wrong. I do not think it includes every shade of unionism or those who do not vote nationalist.
"Orange people" also reminds me of people who shouted "orange bas***ds", but sin sceal eile.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Oh and true, I am not saying it is a travesty for Unionists to have political representatives elected per se. Just that it is only right that Nationalist political representatives should hold majority Nationalist seats.

And who says they are Nationalist majority seats if a unionist gets elected?

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I am a Green person if that means nationalist and republican. I have no problem being called a Green person.

Fair enough. May all the green people live in peace and prosperity with all the non-green people so.

Roisin Dubh

And who says they are Nationalist majority seats if a unionist gets elected?

They are when the combined SDLP-SF vote exceeds the combined vote for the Unionist parties, which it has done in Fermanagh-South Tyrone for at least 20 years. It was a travesty then for West Tyrone and Mid Ulster to be represented by Willie Thompson and Rev.Willie McCrae, because they do not represent the nationalist sentiments of the majority of their constituents.

MadsL

I have no problem being called a Green person.

Is it just on here you have a problem being called by your original username???

MadsL

They are when the combined SDLP-SF vote exceeds the combined vote for the Unionist parties, which it has done in Fermanagh-South Tyrone for at least 20 years. It was a travesty then for West Tyrone and Mid Ulster to be represented by Willie Thompson and Rev.Willie McCrae, because they do not represent the nationalist sentiments of the majority of their constituents.

The PDs certainly do not represent the sentiments of the majority in this country, as they are clearly a minority party, yet they wield considerable power as has been pointed out in another thread. How is PR acting 'more democratically' in this country??

ionapaul

Compared to 2002, FF is down 8%, FG down 7%, and independents down 8%. Labour are up 9%, PDs up almost 8%, and SF up 5%.

Go on the PDs!

That is all

cdebru

MadsL wrote:

The PDs certainly do not represent the sentiments of the majority in this country, as they are clearly a minority party, yet they wield considerable power as has been pointed out in another thread. How is PR acting 'more democratically' in this country??

they are in coalition with fianna fail not in government on their own it just seems that way sometimes

the combined first preference vote of both parties and then transfers they recieved mean they were easily supported by over 50% of the electorate at the last general election also we have a more representative parliament of how the country voted when compared to for example the UK parliament and its first past the post where a 42% vote for the labour party gave them an overwhelming majority

the situation in scotland is worse out of 72 seats labour won 55 of them on a 43% share of the vote
snp won 5 seates on a 20% share of the vote
lib dems won twice as many seats 10 on 16% share of the vote
and the tories won 1 seat on a 15.5% share of the vote

hardly democracy in action

MadsL

FF achieved 41.5 percent of first preference votes last election.
The PD dropped 0.72% to 3.96% even while it doubled its seats from four to eight.


Is this somehow more 'democratic'?

cdebru

MadsL wrote:

FF achieved 41.5 percent of first preference votes last election.
The PD dropped 0.72% to 3.96% even while it doubled its seats from four to eight.


Is this somehow more 'democratic'?

yes because the pd vote was concentrated in a few constituencies


also compare fianna fails 41.5% of the vote and the percentage of the seats they won
as compared to the labour party in the uk which won roughly the same percentage of the vote but one a landslide victory with a massive majority in the house of commons

it is obvious that fianna fails representation in leinster house is more in line with how the country voted
while in a first past the post system the number of representatives elected can bear little or no relation to how the country voted

Roisin Dubh

MadsL wrote:

FF achieved 41.5 percent of first preference votes last election.
The PD dropped 0.72% to 3.96% even while it doubled its seats from four to eight.


Is this somehow more 'democratic'?

Because they got loads of transfers from FG voters who wanted to ensure that FF would not govern alone.

Victor

Regarding west tyrone or quite a few other constituencies, the real competition isn't between Natioanlist and Unionist, but Green -v- Green and Orange -v- Orange. If necessary, some normally unionist voters will vote SDLP to exclude SF from a seat (as happened in West Belfast in 1992(?)). NO doubt some nationalists will also vote UUP to exclude UKUP etc. and to a lesser degree DUP.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I am a Green person

Are you one of the big green people or a little green people?

Roisin Dubh

Victor wrote:

Regarding west tyrone or quite a few other constituencies, the real competition isn't between Natioanlist and Unionist, but Green -v- Green and Orange -v- Orange. If necessary, some normally unionist voters will vote SDLP to exclude SF from a seat (as happened in West Belfast in 1992(?)). NO doubt some nationalists will also vote UUP to exclude UKUP etc. and to a lesser degree DUP.



Are you one of the big green people or a little green people?

Big

cdebru

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Because they got loads of transfers from FG voters who wanted to ensure that FF would not govern alone.

they got loads of transfers from FF voters who wanted to ensure FF would not govern alone

MadsL

More democratic?

What an odd expression.

Either FPTP is a democratic system or it isn't. Which is it?

Victor

MadsL wrote:

Either FPTP is a democratic system or it isn't. Which is it?

It is democrratic, however in my opinion* it is unfairly unrepresentative of minority views.

* And the opinion of many others.

A Dub in Glasgo

MadsL wrote:

More democratic?

What an odd expression.

Either FPTP is a democratic system or it isn't. Which is it?

The STV PR system in the Republic is more representative of peoples opinions than the FPTP system as represented in the UK.

I have voted every time here in Glasgow since I came here and unless I voted for Labour, my vote was wasted as Labour have the majority of the FPTP votes. Don't forget that every constituency in the UK will only elect 1 MP therefore the guy who gets the most votes will get in even if the majority of electorate did not vote for him. This makes it extremely hard for 'minority' views to get a look in and there is very little avenue open for tactical voting.

cdebru

MadsL wrote:

More democratic?

What an odd expression.

Either FPTP is a democratic system or it isn't. Which is it?

it is undemocratic

cdebru

Victor wrote:

It is democrratic, however in my opinion* it is unfairly unrepresentative of minority views.

* And the opinion of many others.

why is it democratic can you explain


it is unrepresentative of majority views over 58% of the uk did not vote for the labour party yet they had a massive landslide win in 2001

167 more seats than all the other parties combined we obviously have a different view of what democracy means

sceptre

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The STV PR system in the Republic is more representative of peoples opinions than the FPTP system as represented in the UK.

Agreed.

cdebru wrote:

it is undemocratic

Not agreed - you still didn't answer my question (obviously you don't have to if you don't feel like it). You've demonstrated that it's less representative (like everyone else has said - can be nicely summed up by the ADiG quote above or by Victor's post) but I was asking how "less representative" (in the particular winner-takes-all sense of FPTP) necessarily means "undemocratic". By that reasoning the UK parliament is undemocratic which effectively makes it an undemocratic state.

cdebru

sceptre wrote:

Not agreed - you still didn't answer my question (obviously you don't have to if you don't feel like it). You've demonstrated that it's less representative (like everyone else has said - can be nicely summed up by the ADiG quote above or by Victor's post) but I was asking how "less representative" (in the particular winner-takes-all sense of FPTP) necessarily means "undemocratic". By that reasoning the UK parliament is undemocratic which effectively makes it an undemocratic state.

i wont disagree with you there the UK is an undemocratic state

it is not less representative it is unrepresentative

if democracy to you means having a vote then yes the people in the UK have a vote but so do the people in Iran so did people in the USSR neither democracies

having a vote is only part of democratic system the outcome of the vote has to be represntative of how the people voted otherwise it is not democratic

the current mp for perth in the UK recieved 29.71% of the vote that means over 70% of those who bothered to vote are being represented by someone they did not vote for

democracy literally means rule by the people that is not what is happening in the UK it is rule by 41% of the people
where large sections of the population are denied or have their voice limited by the system then it is undemocratic

Slutmonkey57b

Couldn't it be qually well argued that the PR system in this country is undemocratic because it hijacks my vote?

For example, in FPTP, I vote for candidate x. If more people vote for candidate y, then candidate y gets in. He may not have the majority if all the other candidates pooled their votes but he did get more votes than any other candidate, ie a majority.
Democracy, remember is a system designed to reflect the wishes of a majority, not of every single individual.

In PR, I vote for candidate x. Candidate x does not have enough votes to get in, so decides, completely arbitrarily and without consulting me to pass MY vote on to candidate y, who I indicated no preference for. Candidate y has now been elected by using my vote without any mandate from me at all. How exactly does abusing my vote constitute democracy?
Meanwhile, candidates a,b and c all get voted in "first time" on what amounts to a FPTP system by any other name.

Slutmonkey57b

cdebru wrote:

i wont disagree with you there the UK is an undemocratic state

the current mp for perth in the UK recieved 29.71% of the vote that means over 70% of those who bothered to vote are being represented by someone they did not vote for

You imply by that example that 30% voted for a candidate, while 70% voted against him. That is not true. 30% voted for him, while 70% voted for several different candidates, all of whom represent a different point of view. The point of a democracy is not that everyone gets represented, but that everyone has the chance to be represented, and that the views of the majority hold sway. The analogy with Iran is deeply flawed, because voters in Iran in reality have no chance to choose their representative.

If the voters in Perth really had that much of a problem with this, then the 70% who don't like their current MP can vote him out very easily. The fact that they don't is not a failure of the FPTP system so much as it is a failure of opposition parties to unite support against the incumbent.

Slutmonkey57b

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

This makes it extremely hard for 'minority' views to get a look in and there is very little avenue open for tactical voting.

How is "tactical voting" democratic?

cdebru

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Couldn't it be qually well argued that the PR system in this country is undemocratic because it hijacks my vote?

For example, in FPTP, I vote for candidate x. If more people vote for candidate y, then candidate y gets in. He may not have the majority if all the other candidates pooled their votes but he did get more votes than any other candidate, ie a majority.
Democracy, remember is a system designed to reflect the wishes of a majority, not of every single individual.

In PR, I vote for candidate x. Candidate x does not have enough votes to get in, so decides, completely arbitrarily and without consulting me to pass MY vote on to candidate y, who I indicated no preference for. Candidate y has now been elected by using my vote without any mandate from me at all. How exactly does abusing my vote constitute democracy?
Meanwhile, candidates a,b and c all get voted in "first time" on what amounts to a FPTP system by any other name.

sometimes your ignorance is breathtaking

in the system we use here stv the candidate does not decide how your vote goes YOU do that is what your 2nd 3rd etc preference is all about
if you plump just for no1 then your vote does not move anywhere

more people voting for a candidate is not a majority it is a simple majority not the same thing
a majority is over 50%


i suggest you learn about STV before you go and vote

cdebru

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

You imply by that example that 30% voted for a candidate, while 70% voted against him. That is not true. 30% voted for him, while 70% voted for several different candidates, all of whom represent a different point of view. The point of a democracy is not that everyone gets represented, but that everyone has the chance to be represented, and that the views of the majority hold sway. The analogy with Iran is deeply flawed, because voters in Iran in reality have no chance to choose their representative.

If the voters in Perth really had that much of a problem with this, then the 70% who don't like their current MP can vote him out very easily. The fact that they don't is not a failure of the FPTP system so much as it is a failure of opposition parties to unite support against the incumbent.

the views of the majority did not hold sway the majority would be over 50%

the point of democracy is that the views of as many as possible are represented not just the views of 29%

your solution to this problem would be for people to not vote for the person they want but to vote against the incumbent for the person who is most likely to be able to defeat the incumbent
how is that democracy or peoples views being represented it makes the anaolgy with Iran even closer as in people dont get to vote for the candidate who most represents their views but against the candidate who least represents their views

MadsL

the point of democracy is that the views of as many as possible are represented not just the views of 29%

Show me a democracy where this is NOT the case. Every electoral system has similar flaws, it doesn't mean they are 'undemocratic'.