Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should we drop Proportional Representation

245678

Comments

  • #32
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭dubrov


    maestroamado wrote:
    Since the two main parties are now one party should we drop the PR system. The old style of politics is over so it may be a good time to reform the whole thing. The PR system is for parties where loyal party members kinda fallow party guidelines. Is it needed in modern politics where people are informed?

    The next time you'd like to start a discussion on a topic, try not to load the opening question with your own political bias


  • #33
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    ELM327 wrote: »
    So, a system where each constituency elects one TD, with the constituency lines drawn as pro rate to the population, is not democracy? Riiight

    That's reductionist snark choosing to ignore the manifest flaws in a system that allows minority candidates - or indeed minority governments - to gain control. Maybe, FPTP would work if there was something like in Switzerland that had direct democracy via constant referenda on policy matters - so cabinets would be held to account more directly by the populous - but that's not how the UK works. It allows lopsided representation that often runs counter to the actual voting breakdown.

    As a for instance, Gerrymandering benefits greatly from the "50 + 1" system. If all you need is one more vote than the next guy to take all the power, then tweaking the constituency can easily accomplish this outcome (that's not to say gerrymandering doesn't exist in PR, but it's a lot harder IMO to fudge the areas to favour Party X)


  • #34
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    Any examples?

    Since the war, in the UK:

    Labour has generally been a big tent, broad church party with the possible exceptions of under Michael Foot in 1983 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2017/19 - though I would argue that Labour's policies over the last few years have been far from extreme, though they were portrayed as such, especially by people I would perceive as extremists themselves.

    The Tories were pretty much a big tent party from Churchill up to and including Ted Heath. They went in a pretty extreme direction under Thatcher. This was then reined in a bit by John Major, before they went off the deep end after the 1997 election. Cameron returned them to the big tent approach in 2010 but by 2015 the loonies were again setting the agenda and we know what has happened since.

    Since the war, in the US:

    The Democrats have always been a big tent party. McGovern in '72 is maybe the only exception, but again, that's a matter of perception.

    The Republicans have more often been fairly extreme. Exceptions to this were Eisenhower, maybe Ford, Bush I, McCain. Nixon played to the extremes and was extreme but at the same time actually implemented some "big government" stuff that would never happen today under a Republican.

    The rest were pretty extreme, never more so than now. Goldwater, Reagan, Bush II, Romney, Trump. The Republicans have had a fairly steady drift towards the extreme since Reagan as the Koch/James Buchanan/Manafort/Stone/neo-liberal/neo-con types infested the party and its ideology.

    In my view a common theme is some pretty extreme stuff from the Republicans and Tories being dressed up as non-extreme, with non-extreme stuff from Labour and the Democrats being mendaciously dressed up as "extremist".

    I think the French Presidential elections can be an example of how extremists can thrive too - a first past the post qualifying competition for a two way run off means that Le Pen has a ticket to that run off for the foreseeable future as she can command a solid 25-28%.

    Incidentally I see Le Pen's party lost not far off 50% of their council seats in France a couple of weeks ago but I didn't see it covered very much in English language media, which was strange as English language media seems to gush over any gains made by the far right in Europe.


  • #35
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,805 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I'd be in favor of FPTP and smaller constituencies. Like in the UK. Removes all the loony parties.

    The loony party has an overall majority

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #36
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,301 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    The loony party has an overall majority
    Not here it doesnt.


    The majority here is FF-FG-GP.
    The only way a loony party here had majority was if you retroactively apply FTPT to the PRSTV model (which is not apples with apples).


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    dubrov wrote: »
    The next time you'd like to start a discussion on a topic, try not to load the opening question with your own political bias


    Please tell me what you think is my political bias?


  • #38
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,805 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Not here it doesnt.

    Well this is pretty tiresome. You were clearly talking about the UK.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #39
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,138 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I'd be in favor of FPTP and smaller constituencies. Like in the UK. Removes all the loony parties.

    Would it remove the loony party currently running the UK?

    If anything I think watching politics in the uk and USA over the last few years has me made appreciate our system more.


  • #40
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Not here it doesnt.


    The majority here is FF-FG-GP.
    The only way a loony party here had majority was if you retroactively apply FTPT to the PRSTV model (which is not apples with apples).

    Earlier you said that first past the post like in the UK removes the loony parties. But the loony party has an overall majority in the UK.

    We don't have a loony party with an overall majority here in Ireland.

    Why? Well, our PR system is not the only reason, but is one of the main reasons.

    Your point was wrong.

    First past the post enables extremes, PR helps to guard against extremes.

    Like anything, it's not foolproof, but it does help.

    And that's why we should not touch first past the post with a barge poll.


  • #41
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭dubrov


    maestroamado wrote:
    Please tell me what you think is my political bias?


    Let me guess. You are not a FF or FG voter.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    dubrov wrote: »
    Let me guess. You are not a FF or FG voter.




    You be completely wrong... I think we just need to drop parochial politics and run the country for the people.


  • #43
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,301 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Well this is pretty tiresome. You were clearly talking about the UK.
    I was not talking about the UK.
    sid waddell wrote: »
    Earlier you said that first past the post like in the UK removes the loony parties. But the loony party has an overall majority in the UK.

    We don't have a loony party with an overall majority here in Ireland.

    Why? Well, our PR system is not the only reason, but is one of the main reasons.

    Your point was wrong.

    First past the post enables extremes, PR helps to guard against extremes.

    Like anything, it's not foolproof, but it does help.

    And that's why we should not touch first past the post with a barge poll.
    The UK does not have a loony party, they have a buffoon leading a normal party. Arguably the better of the two. Especially against a corbyn lead labor which was socialist marxism in all but name.



    The PRSTV system gives disproportionate representation to minority parties. In the UK, loony parties like AAA/PBP wouldnt have any seats, for instajnce


  • #44
    quokula
    Registered Users Posts: 3,569 ✭✭✭quokula


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    The loony party has an overall majority

    With a minority of the vote. This is the problem with FPTP in a nutshell.

    The majority of voters in Britain voted for one of Labour, or Greens, or SNP, or Lib Dems, or Plaid, or Alliance, or SDLP. Under a decent system there would probably be some kind of coalition over there between those parties, all of whom have common ground that could be worked with.

    But instead you've got the extreme far right running the country unchecked.


  • #45
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I was not talking about the UK.

    You advocate FPTP, thus the UK becomes representative of that system being as it is the nearest and most obvious. You can't claim to support one system then say " oh I don't mean to talk about THAT example". So what's your preferred FPTP approach?
    ELM327 wrote: »
    The PRSTV system gives disproportionate representation to minority parties. In the UK, loony parties like AAA/PBP wouldnt have any seats, for instajnce

    Which is inherently undemocratic in that it ignores percentage points of the electorate who vote for those parties. PR strives to give those parties a voice. See, we can all do reduction, the question is which systems show less potential for manipulation or a greater voice to the electorate. FPTP is provably undemocratic by the commonality of giving as much of the electorate a voice as possible.


  • #46
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,264 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    sid waddell wrote: »
    ....but by 2015 the loonies were again setting the agenda and we know what has happened since.

    I couldn't really classify the current Tory government as "extreme right". Unless you're operating on entirely definition (in which case, what you call the BNP?) If anything, it's less right wing that Thatcher, gaining some working class seats with the promise of revitalising those areas (a promise they'll find hard to keep because of Brexit and the difficulty of reconciling this with the more liberal, small government wing of the party).
    sid waddell wrote: »
    The rest were pretty extreme, never more so than now. Goldwater, Reagan, Bush II, Romney, Trump.

    Again, I think you're operating on a different definition of "extreme right" than most people would use. The first four are more neo-liberal than anything else, while Trump is so ideologically incoherent that it's difficult to put him in any box. He's probably best judged on the scale of competence to incompetence than any kind of left-right spectrum.

    Interestingly enough, the one thing Johnson and Trump do have in common is that their victories were as much to do with the weakness of their opponents as they were with anything they promised/said themselves. Neither Clinton nor Corbyn resonated with the middle ground of floating/undecided voters, Clinton marginally so, Corbyn spectacularly so. It's way easier to win if your opponent fields a weak team.


  • #47
    quokula
    Registered Users Posts: 3,569 ✭✭✭quokula


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    I couldn't really classify the current Tory government as "extreme right". Unless you're operating on entirely definition (in which case, what you call the BNP?) If anything, it's less right wing that Thatcher, gaining some working class seats with the promise of revitalising those areas (a promise they'll find hard to keep because of Brexit and the difficulty of reconciling this with the more liberal, small government wing of the party).



    Again, I think you're operating on a different definition of "extreme right" than most people would use. The first four are more neo-liberal than anything else, while Trump is so ideologically incoherent that it's difficult to put him in any box. He's probably best judged on the scale of competence to incompetence than any kind of left-right spectrum.

    Interestingly enough, the one thing Johnson and Trump do have in common is that their victories were as much to do with the weakness of their opponents as they were with anything they promised/said themselves. Neither Clinton nor Corbyn resonated with the middle ground of floating/undecided voters, Clinton marginally so, Corbyn spectacularly so. It's way easier to win if your opponent fields a weak team.

    This is more to do with the utterly skewed media landscapes in both those countries than their political systems. If you're a bit centrist like Clinton then you're a corporate shill, you're corrupt etc etc, but if you're a bit left of centre like Corbyn (and let's be serious, the Labour manifesto produced under Corbyn was not far left, it would not have looked out of place at all if it was produced by a party like FF in Ireland) then you're a marxist, you want to destroy our way of life etc etc.

    The message from Fox News / the Daily Mail and their ilk will always be tailored to scare people into voting a certain way, and the wild west of social media advertising has only amplified that.


  • #48
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    ELM327 wrote: »

    The PRSTV system gives disproportionate representation to minority parties. In the UK, loony parties like AAA/PBP wouldnt have any seats, for instajnce

    You've been drinking the Kool Aid, that's for sure!!

    The PRSTV system that we have, almost uniquely I might add--there are many different variants of PR, actually gives PROPORTIONATE representation to minority parties. If they have a mandate that people want, they win the votes, gain the seats and take their place (or not as may be the case with abstentionists).

    In fact it is the FPTP system that gives disproportionate representation to minority parties, provided that their support is concentrated geographically.Look at the results from the last UK general election. (Other ones are broadly similar)

    The Lib Dems, whose support is diffused around the country (or countries) got nearly twice as many votes (3.7m) as the COMBINED totals of SNP, DUP, SF, SDLP and Plaid Cymru (1.9m). Yet they got less than ONE SIXTH the amount of seats those parties got between them, 11 as opposed to 69!!!!!

    Which system is kinder to the loony minorities, huh? Remember how the DUP held May to ransom and cost her the leadership? Gifting it to that buffoon Boris?

    You need some brain food.


  • #49
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭dubrov


    maestroamado wrote:
    You be completely wrong... I think we just need to drop parochial politics and run the country for the people.


    Fair enough but FF and FG are far from the same party.

    I find it strange that you repeat this line which was pushed heavily by SF supporters in the last election.

    If you do vote for FF or FG as you claim, you clearly don't look into the detail of their policies


  • #50
    beggars_bush
    Registered Users Posts: 4,327 ✭✭✭beggars_bush


    No.


  • #51
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,264 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    quokula wrote: »
    The message from Fox News / the Daily Mail and their ilk will always be tailored to scare people into voting a certain way, and the wild west of social media advertising has only amplified that.

    Nobody's being forced to watch Fox News or read the Daily Mail though. There are far better media outlets out there for anyone who is serious about informing themselves.

    Anyone who tunes into Fox News was never going to vote for Clinton, no matter what they said about her. Those votes were never in play.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    For Forks Sake
    Registered Users Posts: 11,459 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    How could someone look at the outcome of GE in the UK, look at the abomination that is the 'Safe Seat", look a the complete lack of representation of smaller parties/viewpoints who may poll well but lose out under FPTP and go "yes, we should have some of that"?


  • #53
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,805 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    Neither Clinton nor Corbyn resonated with the middle ground of floating/undecided voters, Clinton marginally so, Corbyn spectacularly so. It's way easier to win if your opponent fields a weak team.

    Clinton wins more votes than her opponent, yet is labelled as a weak candidate... You couldn't make it up.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #54
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,264 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Clinton wins more votes than her opponent, yet is labelled as a weak candidate... You couldn't make it up.

    She still lost the election. And she lost to Donald Trump, who can hardly be described as a political colossus


  • #55
    quokula
    Registered Users Posts: 3,569 ✭✭✭quokula


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    Nobody's being forced to watch Fox News or read the Daily Mail though. There are far better media outlets out there for anyone who is serious about informing themselves.

    Anyone who tunes into Fox News was never going to vote for Clinton, no matter what they said about her. Those votes were never in play.

    Nobody is forced to. But Fox is the most popular news channel in the US and the Daily Mail is the second most popular paid newspaper in the UK, behind the Sun which is exactly the same. Their influence is massive and they play an enormous part in creating the news agenda.


  • #56
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,258 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    I couldn't really classify the current Tory government as "extreme right". Unless you're operating on entirely definition (in which case, what you call the BNP?) If anything, it's less right wing that Thatcher, gaining some working class seats with the promise of revitalising those areas (a promise they'll find hard to keep because of Brexit and the difficulty of reconciling this with the more liberal, small government wing of the party).
    I would disagree - they took those Northern seats on essentially race, which is effectively what the anti immigration/ taking back control message boiled down too.


  • #57
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,923 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    ELM327 wrote: »
    So, a system where each constituency elects one TD, with the constituency lines drawn as pro rate to the population, is not democracy? Riiight

    FPTP means you get candidates elected that do not have the support of the majority of the voters within the constituency. You also end up with far far too many "Safe" seats which does not really happen with PRSTV

    They gain a plurality but not necessarily a majority.

    With PRSTV those that win a seat have at least had to have gained some level of support across a wider section of the electorate.

    I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to single seat constituencies (but I'd have to be convinced of the merits) , but PR would categorically have to remain.

    I'd think that single seat constituencies would drive even further parochial behaviours for no particular benefit to governance or selection of candidate .


  • #58
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    quokula wrote: »
    This is more to do with the utterly skewed media landscapes in both those countries than their political systems. If you're a bit centrist like Clinton then you're a corporate shill, you're corrupt etc etc, but if you're a bit left of centre like Corbyn (and let's be serious, the Labour manifesto produced under Corbyn was not far left, it would not have looked out of place at all if it was produced by a party like FF in Ireland) then you're a marxist, you want to destroy our way of life etc etc.

    The message from Fox News / the Daily Mail and their ilk will always be tailored to scare people into voting a certain way, and the wild west of social media advertising has only amplified that.

    Corbyn's manifesto was basically moderate centre-left by European standards and in fact the policies taken alone, divided from who the leader of the party was, were very popular.

    Let's be honest here. Clinton is a woman and the vilification of her was extremely misogynistic. She was obviously a flawed candidate but stuff stuck to her in the way that it doesn't seem to be doing at the moment with Biden. To me the simple difference in that is that one is a woman and the other is a man. The way Clinton was vilified and continues to be vilified in such a manner can only be because of misogynism.

    I also think there was an element of misogynism at play against Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May, and I say that as somebody who would never have voted for either in a million years. I do think Thatcher was an extremist (her obsession with monetarism for instance, which was a complete failure) but I think the outright hatred for her was heightened because she was a woman.

    Theresa May was a very poor PM, but arguably less poor and less weak than David Cameron was, and certainly less extreme and less corrupt than Boris Johnson. Yet Cameron and Johnson seem to get passes in terms of public opinion in the way May didn't.


  • #59
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    its a weird one. for those who want 'change' we actually have the best system capable of delivering it. For those who want safety or consistency then fptp might seem better, but we basically achieved the same here through a cultural mindset which often keeps new / smaller parties at bay.

    People seem to think it would be easy to achieve something under a different system but

    Theres no system I know of that would keep the Healey-rays out ,
    Theres no system I know of that would get gemma/the natonal party in

    Luckily our needs of majority formation and our proportional system means even a large upsurge protest vote like that for SF would struggle to ever form a government. However due to the constituencies seats and sizes it does leave parties like the greens who's only appeal is in Dublin still with a sizeable voice.


  • #60
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,264 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    quokula wrote: »
    Nobody is forced to. But Fox is the most popular news channel in the US and the Daily Mail is the second most popular paid newspaper in the UK, behind the Sun which is exactly the same. Their influence is massive and they play an enormous part in creating the news agenda.

    I think you're misunderstanding the dynamic. Success in media (or mass media at least) is more to do with chasing public opinion than forming it. Nobody watches Fox because there's no other alternative or because they want their opinions challenged. They do so because it tells them what they want to hear.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    sid waddell wrote: »
    Corbyn's manifesto was basically moderate centre-left by European standards and in fact the policies taken alone, divided from who the leader of the party was, were very popular.

    Let's be honest here. Clinton is a woman and the vilification of her was extremely misogynistic. She was obviously a flawed candidate but stuff stuck to her in the way that it doesn't seem to be doing at the moment with Biden. To me the simple difference in that is that one is a woman and the other is a man. The way Clinton was vilified and continues to be vilified in such a manner can only be because of misogynism.

    I also think there was an element of misogynism at play against Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May, and I say that as somebody who would never have voted for either in a million years. I do think Thatcher was an extremist (her obsession with monetarism for instance, which was a complete failure) but I think the outright hatred for her was heightened because she was a woman.

    Theresa May was a very poor PM, but arguably less poor and less weak than David Cameron was, and certainly less extreme and less corrupt than Boris Johnson. Yet Cameron and Johnson seem to get passes in terms of public opinion in the way May didn't.

    I agree with the misogyny against may and thatcher, and its from the people who usually love calling everything misogynistic. Thatcher should be a feminist icon for the position she got to but it maligned by the left because she didn't fit into their box of the type of 'woman leader' they wanted.

    Clinton however was deeply flawed, Biden is a terrible candidate but doesn't have a walk in closet full of skeletons and shady corporate associations that rightly followed Clinton like a bad smell. Her ignorance of the mid west hurt her much more than the 'women bad' voices which are present in every country and political race but its such a quiet voice it doesn't make the odds anymore. If the Dems had prepped a cleaner, much more palatable female candidate I don't think for one second donny would have won. Being a woman helped Clinton get more votes, but the rest of her just undid all that effort.


Advertisement