General Election and 'vote management'

shotamoose · 03-01-2002 8:43pm #1

[I posted this in a vote-thread before, but I thought some potentially interested people mightn't have caught it]

It seems to me that in the past the many left-wing and/or radical parties and individual candidates in Irish elections have split the left-wing/radical/disgruntled vote between them, so that nobody who represents these apparently quite sizeable chunk of the population gets elected.

I've been thinking for a while about how these parties could have the maximum impact in a general election, in terms of eventual seats gained. I think with good 'vote management' you could end up with quite a few constituencies electing a candidate from one of the many parties and smaller groups on the left wing of Irish politics. There has always been the problem of how to get parties to agree to such a system, of course, and how to get the voters to go along with it.

So here's my idea. We set up a website where people from a certain constituency can register a 'pre-vote' for one of a range of candidates in their constituency, candidates who have agreed with each other a common platform to one degree or another. Shortly before the election, these pre-votes are totted up and an email is sent out to all who've 'voted' from that constituency advising them that if they vote for the said candidate they have a far better chance of getting someone who somewhat represents their view into the Dail.

There's a few problems with this of course. You'd have to get the parties and individuals in a particular constituency to get together and hammer out a common platform they're all willing to sign up to. And you'd have to get them to encourage their supporters to not only register pre-votes but to go along with the eventual decision.

You'd also have to make a decision about who to include. Although maybe this would happen as a natural result at constituency level as certain parties would find they disagreed on too many issues to go along with it.

There's logistical problems too. How do you stop people from one constituency pre-voting in another? This I don't know. What's the story with voting ID numbers? When are they sent out? Is there a specific format that a website could accept, blocking out invalid numbers? Do they vary regularly by constituency?

If we can solve those problems, though, and if we get enough publicity (shouldn't be a problem), and if we target people who don't usually vote, like school-leavers and students, it could be quite effective.

If there's any support for the idea, I'd quite like to try setting up a website. Suggested name: Fritter-it.com, as in Don't waste your vote, Fritter-it!!!! Awful I know.

paddymee · 03-01-2002 9:31pm

[edited - keep it civil or else - Gandalf]

It seems to me that in the past the many left-wing and/or radical parties and individual candidates in Irish elections have split the left-wing/radical/disgruntled vote between them, so that nobody who represents these apparently quite sizeable chunk of the population gets elected.

You mean that having half your wages taken from you and either wasted by the Government or given to tossers isn't left-wing enough for you?

Move to Cuba man

Paddy

Sand · 03-01-2002 9:50pm

Agreed. Move to Cuba. Why would anyone want the left elected in the first place? Theyre idiots.

And anyway your sending an email out advising people to vote this way or that is open to huge abuse.

Actually havent you ever heard of polls? They advise people as to the lay of the land before an election- fufilling the same role as your plan for world domination.

paddymee · 03-01-2002 9:52pm

[edited - keep it civil or else - Gandalf]

Oh, sorry. I was making a frivolous reply to a rather frivolous post.

I would have thought the smiley at the end would have protrayed this, but obviously not.

So how PC do I have to be then?

Paddy

gandalf · 03-01-2002 9:56pm

You can disagree with someones post whatever way you want just do not start calling them names etc if their view differs from yours. We have had serious problems in the past with quite valid threads/debates turning into insult fests.

If you disagree with someones post/ideas whatever, just put your point of view across without insulting them directly. Quite simple really.

Gandalf.

paddymee · 03-01-2002 10:39pm

If you disagree with someones post/ideas whatever, just put your point of view across without insulting them directly. Quite simple really.

I dont agree or disagree with him. I was making a joke hence the smiley. I certainly wasn't insulting him.

Ah well, maybe back to the chaos of Usenet ;-)

Paddy

Victor · 04-01-2002 9:25am

Doesn't this constitute vote buying and therefore vote fraud.

And yes I know politicians the world over do it.

Hobbes · 04-01-2002 9:35am

"Don't mention the war!" - John Cleese.

shotamoose · 04-01-2002 6:35pm

I don't think it constitutes vote buying or fraud. But I don't know the legal situation. I'd be surprised if anyone managed to make that stick.
As for polls, this is better than polls.

DadaKopf · 04-01-2002 6:53pm

Shotamoose: Fritter-it seems like a good idea from what you've described. The whole Irish political structure is shaped so that no radical or genuine party to the left gains any real support. Like you say, the public is left with no real option or hope of positive change because the the whole modus operandi of our parties homogenises the whole thing. I presume Fritter-it is a way to highlight this and propose, or at least give people the space to propose a decent alternative. Is this how you intend it?

It's definitely worth pursuing but how would the practicalities work? Is it that you list all the candidates in each constituency and people vote for their favoured candidate. You analyse these 'pre-votes' and email everyone in their respective constituencies with the results (PR-STV I presume) telling them that if they had voted for Candidate Y instead of Candidate X, they'd be better off? And then you hope that people will 'fritter' their votes and vote for the 'better' candidate?

I'm just not entirely sure on how you mean this to work bud it it's about publicising the staleness of the Irish party-political system and hopefully getting people to change their idea of what an election is supposed to do, then it's definitely worth pursuing. It'd be a real undertaking though.

I don't know how exactly you could prevent people from not voting outside of their constituency, either a) you'll just have to trust people to be honest or b) perhaps there's some program out there that will check the user's dialup and will restrict people from voting for any area other than the one they're in. But this, too, presents problems.

"You'd have to get the parties and individuals in a particular constituency to get together and hammer out a common platform they're all willing to sign up to. And you'd have to get them to encourage their supporters to not only register pre-votes but to go along with the eventual decision." Don't quite get what this is about.

shotamoose · 04-01-2002 8:01pm

Originally posted by DadaKopf
"You'd have to get the parties and individuals in a particular constituency to get together and hammer out a common platform they're all willing to sign up to. And you'd have to get them to encourage their supporters to not only register pre-votes but to go along with the eventual decision." Don't quite get what this is about.

Well, the consent of at least some candidates in the constituency is pretty essential. They'd have to see that IF there are other candidates who they share some views with that they wouldn't mind seeing getting elected THEN its in their interests to make it more likely that either themselves or this other candidate(s) gets elected. If this happens, the two or more candidates would get together and see what they agree on and then present this to the voters as well as their own individual manifestos. Hopefully the candidates would have enough interest in the scheme to encourage constituents to go along with it. The candidate could say "If you want to vote for me, you might like to know that I've made a voting pact with [....]. Here's a helpful leaflet that will explain it all".

It requires some co-operation of this sort to work. It can't function as a vehicle for people to somehow nobble the candidacy of someone else.

I dunno if I'm explaining this right.

Boston · 04-01-2002 9:51pm

and what would be the economic aims of these groups, the fiscal and social policies, there ideas for balancing the book of payments, there insight into how the ebr could be limited.

well? thats what i thought, not one, i dont fancy the idea of sending ireland back into the stone age, if i did id vote labour.

Sand · 04-01-2002 10:02pm

and what would be the economic aims of these groups, the fiscal and social policies, there ideas for balancing the book of payments, there insight into how the ebr could be limited.
well? thats what i thought, not one, i dont fancy the idea of sending ireland back into the stone age, if i did id vote labour.

Agreed.

This seems to amount to rigging the election. People no longer vote for some whacky radical student group because they like their politics- they vote for them because theyve been advised that theyre more likely to win a seat than their first choice whacky radical student group. Proportional representation already gives more than enough weight to fringe parties, with a subsequent watering down of policy- why would you want to encourage more?

DadaKopf · 04-01-2002 10:24pm

well? thats what i thought, not one, i dont fancy the idea of sending ireland back into the stone age, if i did id vote labour.

People no longer vote for some whacky radical student group because they like their politics- they vote for them because theyve been advised that theyre more likely to win a seat than their first choice whacky radical student group.

These two probably best consolidate all the stupid, ignorant and quite childish misconceptions people willingly have whenever any political opinions even elightly left of centre are shown.

There seems to be a real cynicism at the core of people when it comes to people who, being presented with a leftist view, seek refuge in resorting to idiotic and plainly wrong conceptions of left-wing political opinions.

"They're all students" they say. Fact: they're not all students. Probably most people who have ever expressed a leftist opinion in the last week are not currently students.

"Yeah? Well, maybe you'd just like to go back to the Stone Age and knit mammoth rugs!" Fact: next to no-one is proposing political regression and no one is proposing to abolish private ownership, if they're sensible. This is just a petty insult that means nothing and makes those who say it even more stupid than they already act.

Proportional representation already gives more than enough weight to fringe parties, with a subsequent watering down of policy - why would you want to encourage more

Wrong. Yes, proportional representation is a better and fairer election system than First Past the Post (FPtP) but it's also a fact that our particular form of PR, Single Transferrable Vote (PR-STV) results in favouring the bigger parties and marginalising the smaller parties. PR-STV in practise, by accident or design, results in increasing the size of the larger parties and reducing the size of smaller parties such as the Greens, Labour or any new party that comes along. Systems such as PR-List are far fairer in allocating parliamentary seats.

You can't blame it entirely on the election system though. It's idiots like you with your negative, smug attitudes that prevent any decent party-system from evolving in this country. We all spend our time criticising those in power and none worse than people who express opinions like both of yours and then someone comes along with, what seems like a refereshing idea and you respond by hammering out parochial dogmatic misconceptions and half-witted clichées.

Sand · 04-01-2002 10:41pm

The Left are usually people with arts degrees thinking theyre qualified to run an economy. Abolishing private ownership has already been doused with cold water by the sheer prosperity that is generated by private ownership- Even the left recognises that they can get more money to waste on their pet projects if they take it off the people who own private enterprises.

Id actually be in favour of first past the post myself- I feel the rise of independants and small parties bring local politics and single issue policies into a realm where they dont belong- national politics. The deals FF have had to spin with the Independants are a good example.I see no benefit in government by coalition.

I criticise those in power because theyre corrupt and often ineffective- I dont see how electing groups who believe in increasing the powers and range of the government to be even more corrupt and ineffective is helpful. If anything what Ireland needs is a party with right thinking policies. This is unlikely as every politician has learned the best thing to do is populist spend- a responsible right thinking party wouldnt survive contact with such a system.

Boston · 05-01-2002 12:35am

DadaKopf, im not going to argue with you, just anme a left wing group that has any real objectives to solving social problems, and ill have a look. In fact show we one that will be taken seriously be our trading partners and ill vote for them. I think it was austria that when into goveremnt with a part left wing goverment, the other eu states talked about blockading that country.

you think i like ff or fg, but its been my experience with left wing parts, sinn finn being the largest i (afaik), they lack and realitic ideas about how to achieve economic growth or stability.

So please, if your goign to slag off what i have to say, please give examples of were im going wrong. im opened minded

DadaKopf · 05-01-2002 3:54am

Id actually be in favour of first past the post myself- I feel the rise of independants and small parties bring local politics and single issue policies into a realm where they dont belong- national politics

I presume you like to live in a democracy. Let's get this straight: say for example, in a two party run-off election using FPtP rules, candidate A got 49% of the vote and candidate B got 51% of the vote, you would be completely OK with the fact that almost half the population didn't get any representation? You find this democratic? So, imagining this is a multi-member constituency, you find it completely acceptable that a huge segment of the population does not receive their proportional representation in parliament or the cabinet? Do you honestly thing this is fair? Only for the elites or established parties within a society which is despicably parochial in nature.

By comparison, the PR system, in general, is much 'fairer' in that is more closely represents the political will of the nation in so far as it most accurately reflects in parliamentary seats the political affiliations and desires of a particular state. I'm not getting into arguments about radical forms of government (or non-government) but only a comparison between the two voting methods.

The deals FF have had to spin with the Independants are a good example.I see no benefit in government by coalition.

So, Sand, what you're once again saying is that you'd prefer the least reasonable amount of democracy to precipitate a political system for... why? The dominance of two political parties, so similar that you can only differentiate them from each other by the colour of their ties? FPtP systems, statistically, result in two 'effective' parties (case in hand: the United Kingdom). Politically, this results in rot. What you seem to accuse the Irish parties of under our system, it's double-plus worse under a FPtP system. No new parties get a look in, regardless of there being a demand (or need) for them. It's amazing how much a voting system can change the scope of things.

I simply don't believe that the FPtP, plurality system is democratic at all and worse still, it give people no real choice. I was always under the assumption that our right to vote was actually connected with the democratic principle of self-determination, the shared responsibility to steer their country the way they thought it best (whether for self-gain or the 'common good'). Democracy is supposed to be a fairly calculated aggregate of the general will. We elect representatives to steer our country, they're our representatives and they're accountable to us.

But according to the FPtP system, I simply don't see how that's possible. Furthermore, with Ireland's stupid, conservative, begrudging, cynical attitude to everything, I can't see anyone even possessing the imagination to imagine themselves imagining a better way forward. FPtP keeps things stale, so if you're some kind of arch-conservative, you'll like it and that's typical and don't get scared then I utter the word 'change'.

shotamoose · 05-01-2002 10:45am

Originally posted by «Bo§ton»
DadaKopf, im not going to argue with you, just anme a left wing group that has any real objectives to solving social problems, and ill have a look. In fact show we one that will be taken seriously be our trading partners and ill vote for them. I think it was austria that when into goveremnt with a part left wing goverment, the other eu states talked about blockading that country.

you think i like ff or fg, but its been my experience with left wing parts, sinn finn being the largest i (afaik), they lack and realitic ideas about how to achieve economic growth or stability.

So please, if your goign to slag off what i have to say, please give examples of were im going wrong. im opened minded

But this is problematic. The way politics is organised in Europe these days, any 'real' left wing group will find itself marginalised by the mainstream political discourse, which is overwhelmingly free-market friendly. In fact, one of the most interesting things about New Labour is that, to an extent, they're trying to smuggle in genuinely left wing policies while pretending to be the cuddly tories, friendly to business and all that: New Labour have been quite keen on redistributing wealth, but have done it in subtle and indirect ways, by increasing tax credits and taking all pensioners above the poverty line. They haven't broadcast this because they want to be seen as business friendly and the whole 'business community' which ranges from the Financial Times to the Central Business Insitute to the guys who trade shares in the Stock Market gets very nervous if they think a government is being too socially progressive.

Any party which is not as, well, dishonest as New Labour will find it a lot more difficult to get anywhere near power because the big money lobby (and there IS a big money lobby) will try to stir panic around that country that they're not a 'safe pair of hands', that they're 'irresponsible', that they'll (gasp) 'reduce growth', that, yes, 'our trading partners won't like it'.

The very fact that you're going on about achieving economic growth as an end in itself and about how one of the main objectives of a government is to make its trading partners comfortable just shows how this kind of thinking has infected even the most casual political discussion. Did you see France being blockaded when the Socialists got elected?

The result of the dominance of these ideas in all levels of political discussion is that parties or people who don't subscribe to them are excluded as wackos or, worst of all, 'radicals'. In Ireland's contemporary political climate, there can be no such thing as a 'credible', genuine left wing party (unless they're brilliant liers like New Labour, whose socialism is quite limited anyway) when credibility is so narrowly defined.

You might argue that this simply reflects the wishes of the people. If they wanted socialism, they'd vote for it. I'm not sure thats such a rock-solid position. Why has turnout steadily decreased and voter apathy continued to increase in the last twenty years? I'd hypothesise that its (partly, at least) because mainstream political discourse has become so very narrow. People decline to vote for one of several identical parties because they're views aren't being represented and they don't want to give legitimation to a government they won't support.

I'm not claiming there's a vast army of potential Socialist Worker voters out there just dying to vote if only someone would show them how. I'm saying that the long term trend of increased apathy is directly connected to the long term stagnation in genuine political discourse which results in the lack of genuine alternatives, the stifling of genuinely left wing opinion (or the confinement of it to the comment pages of the posh papers), and the kind of comments we've heard here about a 'real' socialist alternative which will also guarantee growth and the undisturbed sleep of our trading partners.

Sand · 05-01-2002 3:50pm

FPTP gives you what my definition of democracy is- government of all the people with the consent of the majority of the people. I dont see whats wrong with a system where you vote for the candidate who represents your views best and leave it at that.

By comparison, the PR system, in general, is much 'fairer' in that is more closely represents the political will of the nation in so far as it most accurately reflects in parliamentary seats the political affiliations and desires of a particular state.

It leads to a Dail/Parliment with dozens of different parties, independants where a governments can only be formed by backroom dealing and the support of some tiny parties single issue (Which the majority did not vote for). Thats not democratic. Good governments require the ability to actually govern without compromising the manifesto they were elected to carry out- PR reduces their ability to do that- hence the "middle of the road" politics that has actually hampered the development of real politics here.

so if you're some kind of arch-conservative, you'll like it and that's typical and don't get scared then I utter the word 'change'

I want change- What makes you so sure your left wing, radical groups are the one to give me the change I want? I want improvements, not change for the sake of change- which seems to be your rationale for the left- despite or perhaps because of the complete failure of their policies.

The way politics is organised in Europe these days, any 'real' left wing group will find itself marginalised by the mainstream political discourse, which is overwhelmingly free-market friendly

Thats because to the shock and horror of the left, free market policies are extremely successful.

The very fact that you're going on about achieving economic growth as an end in itself

Given governements cant run airlines, rail companies or health services effectively - YES:) . Governments have a tremendous amount of control over the economy- they should use it to promote growth not restrict it. Hence they improve the nations welfare in more meaningful ways than silly pet projects like planting a tree for every family in the state.

You might be right in saying there can be no such thing as a genuine Left wing party in Ireland, but the same forces prevent a genuine Right Party as well. So it all evens out.

I'd hypothesise that its (partly, at least) because mainstream political discourse has become so very narrow.

Youre right but not in the way you think- Its the parties of the left that have "sanitised" politics. Try and have a debate on immigration (an important topic nowadays) for example and see if anyone proposing less immigration can get away without being called a racist ,nazi (makes me laugh when left calls the right nazis:) ) scumbag. Much as the Church used to narrow political debate within the state , the left does the same. Its not remarkable really- the right believes in small government and greater individual freedoms whereas the left has always been about the state.

Typedef · 05-01-2002 4:51pm

First Past the Post : http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esd01.htm is an anthema to democracy. In a first past the post system of election a person in may only get a fraction of a vote say 5% in a given constituancy, but so long as that 5% is the greatest single vote then it is the vote that is declared the winner. Hmm nothing particularly democratic about throwing away the other 95% of votes in that instance is there?

Proportional representation which is luckily the system of election in Ireland is by far the more representative system as it actually strives to enumerate the assigned representation as the vote was cast as opposed to an overall majority of votes.

Proportional representation (PR) is based on the principle that any group of like-minded voters should win legislative seats in proportion to its share of the popular vote. Whereas the winner-take-all principle awards 100% of the representation to a majority, PR allows voters in a minority to win their fair share of representation. There is a broad range of PR systems. Some are based on voting for political parties; others for candidates. Some allow very small groupings of voters to win seats; others require higher thresholds of support to win representation. All promote more accurate, balanced representation of the spectrum of political opinion in a given electorate.

http://www.fairvote.org/pr/
In effect Proportional Representation is democracy in a pure sense.

Vis-a-Vis tactical voting, I think that it is a great idea, I plan to cast a tactical non FF/FG or rather non-political-right-wing-establishment so that I can effect some change to the foreign policy of the government of Ireland and also to try to get a party elected which will nominally(until that party becomes corrupt) represent and respect the democracy that Ireland has enshrined and espoused since the inception of the state.

DadaKopf · 05-01-2002 6:46pm

FPTP gives you what my definition of democracy is- government of all the people with the consent of the majority of the people. I dont see whats wrong with a system where you vote for the candidate who represents your views best and leave it at that

That's completely incorrect. FPtP is, as Typedef has correctly pointed out, an anathema to democracy.

St. Ives election, 1992:
Conservative vote: 42.9%
Lib-Dem vote: 40.1%
Labour: 16.0%
Liberal: 1.0%

In short, the actual majority (57%) got no representation.

You say that PR promotes tactical voting. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. In the last few elections the UK has had, each one has been predominantly about tactical voting. The only reason the Lib-Dems got so many seats this time around was simply because the public didn't want either the Tories or Labour in. What happens, of course, is people don't vote for whose representation they really want, just whose representation they don't want.

This malaise is colsely related to a trend that Arend Lijphart found which shows that under the FPTP system, you only get 2 'effective parties' which results in bringing both parties to the centre of the political spectrum in order to maximise votes. It destroys the possibility of genuine political discourse/argumentation in favour of back-and-forth partisanism. PR, on the other hand, results in generaly four or more effective parties; this eradicates tactical voting, allows for more political scope and representation and places an emphasis on political argumentation in parliament about issues, addressed from real positions and not shallow political manoevering and one-upmanship.

Funnily enough, you criticise PR for being a system that reduces all political parties to some moderate, centerist location when it's actually PR that allows for all parties and independents to occupy anything from single-issues to peripheral, right or left wing positions. The mix of parties under a PR system can only be a good thing for parliamentary decision-making. It's the FPTP system that, necessarily, reduces all parties to occupy the centre. Moreover, FPTP is a system that staves off political change - the likelyhood of new voting patterns (as a result of social change) as that which occurred in Europe radically throughout the 60s and 70s is eradicated. You say you want change but FPTP, by definition, prevents this from happening. (Link to summary of Lipset and Rokkan's findings here)

All in all, FPTP does exactly the opposite of what you accuse. To be honest, the whole continent of Europe has abandoned FPTP for good reason - England, now, is the only country to have kept this system. Why? Most likely that the Conservative elite know it'll ensure them political power the most, with the most vote-share and also with Labour in power, they know PR is more just but they won't abandon it because they'll see their vote-share diminish also. The only country that isn't using a brand of PR is France which uses a two-ballot system, of which proportionality is low. And, as a piece of trivia, Ireland is the only country to use PR-STV - the rest of europe using PR uses either PR-List and those systems vary between d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague.

Boston · 05-01-2002 8:07pm

i wouldnt be infavour of first past the post, voter apathy in the uk is at an all time high, and no wonder why. our system is allot fairer imho

Sand · 05-01-2002 8:57pm

Round Two-Fight:)

You talk about people not being represented- IMO, their vote IS their representation. They vote for their candidate- the candidate with the most votes gets elected- Fair and simple imo.

I didnt say PR encouraged tactical voting. I said it led to a Government of 2-3 different parties, each of whom were elected on different manifestos- and to get some things done they each have to forget about other things - which they were elected to do. This is only magnified in Ireland where small parties and independants who hold the balance of power thanks to PR can suddenly dictate manifestos to their government partners- That is undemocratic- If the majority of the people wanted their manifesto theyd have voted for it with their first preference vote). Politics becomes watered down deals and people understandably lose faith in politicians who cant/wont deliver what theyre elected to do.

You say new parties cant emerge- British Labour emerged under FPTP didnt it? So did groups like the Irish Parlimentary Party and old Sinn Fein - If new parties havent emerged its probably got a lot to do with the fact that new parties are often single issue/"protest" parties (The Greens for example) and people demand more than feel good politics.

What modern politics needs are *effective* governments who can carry out the manifesto they were elected to carry out. For better of for worse Labour has the power to carry out the manifesto it was elected to carry out. PR impedes that, encouraging middle of the road politics as the major parties (Fianna Fail) swing from one parter (Lefties Labour) to another (Righties PDs) in an attempt to form a government out of the resultant mess (apparently left wing ultra nationalist Sinn Fein is going to hold the balance of power in the next Dail ).

DadaKopf · 05-01-2002 9:29pm

So you're saying you'd much prefer a system of government that is forced to the centre by virtue of the voting system in place (the aim for the two effective parties maximising votes by appealing to as many people as possible) rather than a legislature that is forced into a dialogue which, in an ideal situation, turns out the best possible decision, all things considered?

This system might be convenient for the parties, and for a country so politically ignorant as Britain for simplicity's sake (I've heard more in-depth political discussions in America for Christ's sake!), but as the basis of the best possible political climate available on this continent, PR is the best option. FPTP might present itself as a real choice but it's not, it's largely an either/or scenario in which people vote for a different party because they just are in the mood for change. It is not productive.

I'm just discussing the ramifications of the election system. I think what you're alluding to is the problem of accountability. You seem to be saying that the Irish method of politics is to not consult the public unless they have to. Surely this is more a problem with accountability and the scurge of despicable 'career politicians'. That's what prevents "effective governments" from making good legislature and making good on their manifesto promises, not the election system - it's a side-issue.

My simple point, about which this whole thread started, is that it's best to have a PR voting system for the simple reason that it best represents the political wills of every voter in totality and that, in contradiction to your assertion, FPTP does not. However, our brand of PR, Single Transferrable Vote, favours bigger parties over smaller ones, which should not be the case. Moreover, it's the the political culture, social cleavages and historical alliegences that further compound what is, in my opinion, a stagnant political system.

In response to your comment that new parties have managed to get a look-in in the UK, yes, that's correct. But look at the time scale and the huge amount of social upheaval that book-ended it. Traditionally, the Conservatives represented the upper-middle to upper echelons of British Society while the Liberals (Whigs) represented most everybody else but in particular the middle class liberals and the emerging bourgeoisie. It took a little episode in our history called the Industrial Revolution to radically alter the social fabric throughout Europe to give rise to the Labour Party. The primary reason that the Labour Party got a look-in was because of the extended franchise - a change in the electoral system, a change for the better (but not enough). The very fact that the Industrial Revolution had created an entirely new class and that the franchise caused the rapid mobilisation of over half the British population, it was only a matter of time until one of the parties was shunted to the side. But it wasn't going to be the Conservatives - that party has always been associated with holding the purse strings. At this point, I have to add that under any electoral system, any change in voting patterns must usually be preceded by some kind of radical change be it social, economic, environmental or political. However, PR is the most responsive to this kind of change - that's only a good thing.

Change under FPTP is, of course possible, but only on this mammoth scale and I don't find it particularly reassuring or acceptable.

Sand · 05-01-2002 9:51pm

Your worried because it takes a large social change to effect a large political change?

No- What Im saying is PR FORCES the parties to mix and match their manifestos so they can make some sort of government out of the mish mash of parties that results- and they end up with a hybrid manifesto NO ONE voted for- witness the punishment of Labour by the voters for entering a government with Fianna Fail. FPTP ensured that British Labour can carry out the manifesto that it was voted into power to carry out.

You complain that smaller parties arent favoured- thats only practical imo - Government by commitee is about as effective as design by commitee. A persons vote is their representation - not a dozen small, ineffective parties each squabbling over who gets to drive the government bus so they can implement their pet projects which the majority did not vote for.

DadaKopf · 05-01-2002 10:38pm

No, I'm worried that FPTP is not responsive to change. It takes something like a crisis to alter voting patterns. This means that any political change occurs as a result of some kind of paradigm shift, a huge demarkation point that punctuates the social fabric. That's not good; PR is better suited to incremental change which I see as the most healthy. That's not to rule out the necessity of paradigm shifts and their place in history, all I mean to say is that PR seems to religate change to this one-dimensional dynamic.

Yes, I agree with you that politicans are required to set forth platforms on which they intend to run and tasks to carry out when in government. However, during election time, coalitions are formed (power-sharing executives) - parties come together to share the vote in order to maximise votes yes, but running a country shouldn't be a business. Coalitions force parties into dialogue - this is the essence of good politics. The trick, which is another argument altogether, is how, in practise, to make this dialogue genuine. The job of the politican is to run a country and that can't be done on a business-like model. Checks and balances must be in place - that's the nature of the job. Not speaking for any other countries, Ireland doesn't have its politicians accountable enough to the public.

You also seem to make the assumption that a government's job is to give the public everything they want. The job of the government is to steer the country as best it can in virtue of the general will. There are many times when a government must make decisions against the general will but for the common good. The purpose of voting is for the public to decide on candidates who they trust to make good on their election promises and to run the country; in turn the politicians are expected to steer the country in the public's best interest but not entirely according to their whims. At this point, the politicians or government should be accountable to the public and should be open to reprimand if they have seriously cocked up but it's exactly the laws and procedures surrounding this phase that also demand close scrutiny. It's a tricky issue but by no means is the efficacy of a government down to the fact that they make good on all their promises. The efficacy of a government (coalition or otherwise) is down to the points they promised they can deliver which are in the perceived common interest.

My chief concern, in any case, is 1) adequate representation (sensitivie to change) and 2) accountability.

Sand · 06-01-2002 12:55am

My chief concerns are 1) Effective government.

Whats the point in voting for a parties manifesto if the first thing they do is throw out half of it so they can accomadate a partner? The election is meant to settle what the people want- if they wanted some small party in power theyd have voted for them. Its safe to say the majority have little problem with a free market economy- It works and their richer- end of story. Im sure socialists also belive that the free market isnt the best model- however this is settled by people voting for their party, they dont vote for a party so then the two parties can come together later and make some deal where its a half assed free market with some socialist tripe stuck on to keep them happy- If there was a market for that , why didnt somebody pitch it as their manifesto in the first place? PR encourages this sort of situation.

It occurs to me that is a nessessity to have a paradigm shift to have a significant shift in voting patterns. There is for example little difference between what this generation and the generation of say the 50s actually *want*. An accountable government, a well run economy and security. Thats pretty much what they want- not always in that order of course. Seeing as that hasnt changed why would voting patterns?

It isnt my assumption they have to give the people everything they want (whod pay for all the "free" everything)- its my assumption they should at least try to carry out what they were elected to carry out.

Victor · 06-01-2002 1:17pm

Sand are you honestly advocating a FF government with a substantial majority?

And to be fair the people rejected a FPTP sytem in the 1970s. the people (well those born before 1955) have spoken on how they want to be governed.

shotamoose · 06-01-2002 8:43pm

Originally posted by Sand
My chief concerns are 1) Effective government.

Whats the point in voting for a parties manifesto if the first thing they do is throw out half of it so they can accomadate a partner? The election is meant to settle what the people want- if they wanted some small party in power theyd have voted for them.

And PR helps ensure that that we don't get the ridiculous 'winner takes all' result of FPtP where a party which gets 40% of the votes in a 60% turnout gets to govern unilaterally for five yars over the whole country. Coalitions resulting from FPtP are more representative and representativity is a prerequisite for democracy.

You seem to be arguing for FPtP on the basis of some idea of the quality of a government being a function of how easy it finds it to achieve its policies - the most 'efficient' government would thus do everything it wants and nothing it doesn't want. Taken to an extreme, this means that Stalin was an incredibly efficient and therefore good governer because he tended to get his way. Nobody really disagreed with him, so he must have been doing a good job, right? Please note that I am not accusing you of supporting Stalin (I'd have to get to know you a bit better before doing that

)

Its safe to say the majority have little problem with a free market economy- It works and their richer- end of story.

Oh please. The 'free market' is a euphemism for an unmanaged and unregulated economy, a corporation's wetdream where the economically powerful are 'free' to enrich themselves wihout fear of restraint from the state which, you'll recall, is supposed to be there to represent the people. A completely free market is totally undemocratic, anti-democratic even. The World Trade Organisation is the most advanced expression of the free trade idea around, and it regularly overturns food safety laws and environmental standards in countries around the world, harmonising all protections downwards to a level set by, guess who, the World Trade Organisation itself and its standards committees dominated by industry types. It should be obvious that a free market, to labour the point, means the freedom of the strong to exploit the rich. i really don't believe people are in favour of this. I do believe the majority want an economic environment in which people can create wealth for the benefit of the society, in which jobs are secure and of a high quality and in which the government is able to protect the interests of those people who voted for it and whom it represents - the public.

Im sure socialists also belive that the free market isnt the best model- however this is settled by people voting for their party, they dont vote for a party so then the two parties can come together later and make some deal where its a half assed free market with some socialist tripe stuck on to keep them happy- If there was a market for that , why didnt somebody pitch it as their manifesto in the first place? PR encourages this sort of situation.

It's not like there are only two choices - the 'free market' and 'socialism'. That's another myth put about by the business lobby, part of which is the idea that the welfare system and nationalised services are stepping stones to communism. Which is bullplop.

Victor · 06-01-2002 9:05pm

Perhaps reform of the political system should be concentrated on improving the quality of candidates before any change in the voting system.

Whatever about the advantages of having a concensus before radical action, at times you would really like to see action when necessary (I was shocked when Bertie offered Shannon to the USAF - he actually made a decision).

EDIT Have we gone off topic yet?

Sand · 06-01-2002 10:38pm

Victor youre assuming FF would win the majority. A voting system shouldnt be judged on whether or not your favourite party wins or not.

Shot the important hole in your logic was that Stalin was a communist (Hitler was a National Socialist and a sham democrat) - Stalin had no democratic mandate. And yes I feel the quality of a government relies on how well they carry out what they were elcted to carry out- thats why we have elections.

About the free market etc. Youre assuming the primary role of the government is wealth redistribution. Thats where we disagree.

It should be obvious that a free market, to labour the point, means the freedom of the strong to exploit the rich

Typo perhaps? Seems to me to be an apt description of a Socialist government.

I do believe the majority want an economic environment in which people can create wealth for the benefit of the society,

Basis of economics 101 - Nobody, but nobody ever ever ever goes out to create wealth for the benefit of society. They create it for their own benefit. Until the left create an economic model that accepts this their economic policies will always be a failure.

in which jobs are secure and of a high quality

Jobs are only as secure as they are profitable for the company to provide- In a economic recession there will be unemployment because their will be less production and hence need for less workers. As for high quality jobs? Well if people dont work at school, leave at the earliest possible opportunity and generally dont help themselves- Well, there will be plenty of people looking to make a career of asking "Want fries with that?" and the least qualified jobs will always pay the least.

It's not like there are only two choices - the 'free market' and 'socialism'

Sure there is, Socialists dont actually have an economic policy beyond raising taxes on the productive sectors of the econokmy and giving it to the unproductive sectors of the economy. The free market can thrive perfectly well without socialist dogma attached, Socialism cant survive without the free market.

Victor · 06-01-2002 11:01pm

Originally posted by Sand
Victor youre assuming FF would win the majority.

Fair point, but I don't think I'm being unrealistic.

Originally posted by Sand
A voting system shouldnt be judged on whether or not your favourite party wins or not.

I actually don't mind FF being in poweer, I dislike them (or anyone else - /me is looking at independants) excessively exploiting (can I say corrupting) that power.

Originally posted by Sand

Sure there is, Socialists dont actually have an economic policy beyond raising taxes on the productive sectors of the econokmy and giving it to the unproductive sectors of the economy.

Eh, aren't you a student ...

Sand · 07-01-2002 12:50am

Which has prepared my answer- Positive externalities from education

. Well assuming its not an arts degree- thats just a waste of everyones time and money.:D

shotamoose · 07-01-2002 1:18am

quote:

It should be obvious that a free market, to labour the point, means the freedom of the strong to exploit the rich

Typo perhaps? Seems to me to be an apt description of a Socialist government.

Well perhaps you (a) haven't thought out the ramifications of what people really mean by the term 'free market', and (b) have your own fairly narrow ideas about socialism, which might bear some rethinking.

Basis of economics 101 - Nobody, but nobody ever ever ever goes out to create wealth for the benefit of society. They create it for their own benefit. Until the left create an economic model that accepts this their economic policies will always be a failure.

Oh. this must be another one of these universal 'laws' of economics we keep getting told about. Which neatly enshrines careless individualism as some sort of immutable fact of life. Why should we be surprised when people are selfish and harmful to others, after all its a law of economics. Bullplop. The sooner people start questioning the flawed reasoning behind the basic assumptions of mainstream economics the sooner we can develop decent solutions to the very complex and very deeply ingrained problems we face. I'm certainly not blaming capitalism for all the problems in the world, I'm just saying that a blinkered repetition of the tired old mantras of free trade making everything okay is not good enough anymore.

As for going off topic, yeah we have been alright haven't we? Although I think the discussion so far has been a pretty natural consequence of the original post, I'd like to try returning to it again and just ask if anyone sees any merit in the idea? Some people I've spoken to about it are very enthusiastic, some just poo-poohed it immediately as unworkable and ethically dodgy. I think the first criticism is most valid: it would be hard work to get it up and running, but at least it'd be an interesting exercise. And if I was going to give it a try I'd probably need lots of help. So if anyone's got the next five months free let me know.

Sand · 07-01-2002 2:17am

Why should we be surprised when people are selfish and harmful to others, after all its a law of economics.

No its the other way around. Its because people are selfish that its the underlying concept. If people arent selfish why do they save money? what they dont need they should give to those who are poorer yeah? Why is it when they invest money the two things they look at are return and risk to to them-not which investment benefits society most? You mightnt like to think people are selfish but saying bullplop wont make it any less true.

Well theyre right to say its unworkable and ethically dodgy. Unworkable because selfishness (see above) will mean politicians wont sacrifice their "exsposure"- they mighnt win this time but if they grab a significiant vote they might do better next election- Look at Nader and Gore in the US. Same reasoning, Anyone who voted Nader probably wishes they voted Gore- But Nader wouldnt cut a deal because he was aiming for that magic 5%.

Ethically dodgy because it isnt representitive of peoples views anymore - If they wanted candidate X in why didnt they vote for him in the first place- and if his manifesto is so acceptable why are there other left candidates when they apparently split the left vote? - instead it becomes about stopping candidate Y from winning - not exactly positive politics.

Victor · 07-01-2002 5:40pm

Originally posted by Sand
Which has prepared my answer- Positive externalities from education . Well assuming its not an arts degree- thats just a waste of everyones time and money.:D

Maybe I'm wasted, but explain this to me.

Sand · 07-01-2002 6:54pm

K lets see if I can explain this without the aid of a graph:)

There is a certain demand for education, based on its private benefit to the individual ( You get a better education you can get a better job, better wages- hence demand for better education for an individual). However an educated workforce brings its own additional social benefits, or positive externalities

-Better education leads to people capable of generating better ways of producing goods and services, which then pass onto the general population through knowledge and technology spillover.

-A better educated workforce attracts foreign hi tech investment (again leading to technology spill over and infrastructural investment), and the wages that these firms offer (often in excess of domestic firms) enter the domestic economy.

Because of these positive externalities its beneficial to society to encourage education. An example of a negative externality would be pollution, which it is beneficial to discourage.

Human Capital (Education and training and so on, a measurement of the "quality" of the work force is an important component of the production function which helps determine prosperity and economic growth.

DadaKopf · 07-01-2002 11:26pm

Get back on topic, grease balls.

Aspro · 11-01-2002 10:13am

Originally posted by Sand
Agreed. Move to Cuba. Why would anyone want the left elected in the first place? Theyre idiots.

I think the population of Dublin West would have to disagree with you.

Why elect the left? Because FF, FG, Labour, PDs are all right wing and represent the rich and powerful. So who represents us?

DadaKopf · 11-01-2002 10:39pm

Michael Noonan's announcement, saying that he wishes to form a coalition with the Labour party, sparked a very interesting debate, which is particularly relevant to the original subject of the thread (but not so much where it's gone since).

Essentially, a panelist, justifiably said that the Irish party system is crap. There’s a huge swathe of people without good representation and that the nature of party politics in Ireland is radically changing as a direct result of advances in The North.

Strangely enough, the Labour representative agreed and proceeded to accuse Fianna Fáil of only acting on things when it reached the mainstream. This was further reinforced by Bowman. Fianna Fáil was, naturally, the party to most refute these comments, whether they were against FF or anyone else, and ended up looking bad, arrogant and chronically out of touch. Fianna Fáil was told point blank that they wait for something to reach the mainstream and then they act on it or jump on the bandwagon (reference in point was their historical approach to Northern Ireland). Why? No balls and vote maximisation (which looks like it's not working anymore - I mean, FF is going to lose Leitrim).

Why does the country continue to vote for them? Parochialism and a stagnant party-system with so little real choice that people vote for their least worst candidate, not the one most able for the job or with positive ideas. If we know we vote for the least worst candidate, why don't we change that? I can only guess that it's some particularly Irish type of conservatism.

Any way I can contribute to helping people relise this and realise that that can actually change, I'll get involved. Fritter-it is one of the simplest ideas I've seen - at least it's something other than complaining and doing nothing. Clearly shotamoose is a visionary! Ah no, it's at least comforting to see how the 'learned' of Irish politics have realised the same thing - shotamoose's idea looks like it's a start.

Sand · 12-01-2002 1:45am

Why vote for FF? Their finance minister seems to know how to run a successful economy.

Victor · 13-01-2002 6:29pm

Originally posted by Sand
Why vote for FF? Their finance minister seems to know how to run a successful economy.

And engage in creative accounting.

And fiddle with the tax system over several years instead of implementing rapid reform - it's a great way of keeping accountants busy. Yes, lets put the countries great business minds to use at trying to work out this year's tax credits, instead of using them for innovative business ideas. :mad:

General Election and 'vote management'

Comments