And now the next kerfuffle - the Labour Leadership

[Furunculus]

Unfortunately it is supposed. In practice, it is the largest minority ruling.

This is where a system like STV would come into play, as you need to reach a threshold of votes and also allows people to state their preferences more distinctly.

So for example, the person voting for the Brexit party who won't win may view the Conservatives as an alternative. Therefore, those who feel the same would have a transfer of votes to them and having a better reflection of the population (ie: that candidate represents lets say 42% of the area now, rather than 34%). Similar to the ideological aligned/pact of Greens & LibDems. It also helps reduce tactical voting as people are more likely to vote for the person/party who more closely represents their views, without feeling it has been 'wasted'.

i accept this benefit, but id want to weigh stv against my dislike of coalition politics.
i like a majoritarian electoral system (different from majoritarian government), and would reject systems greatly encourage that outcome.

[Beskar]

i like a majoritarian electoral system (different from majoritarian government), and would reject systems greatly encourage that outcome.

Are you able to explain this a little better for me?

If I am understanding you correctly, you like this (which is different from this), and therefore you reject any systems which greatly encourage this.

If I understood you correctly, are you able explore your views of the criticisms?



As a side-note, I kind of see Majoritarian Democracy as what Marx meant by Tyranny of the Proletariat. ie: The workers have full control as they outnumber the bourgeoisie. In a very simplistic way.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you able to explain this a little better for me?

If I am understanding you correctly, you like this (which is different from this), and therefore you reject any systems which greatly encourage this.

If I understood you correctly, are you able explore your views of the criticisms?



As a side-note, I kind of see Majoritarian Democracy as what Marx meant by Tyranny of the Proletariat. ie: The workers have full control as they outnumber the bourgeoisie. In a very simplistic way.

Well, the best system of government is a benign but competent Tyrant, as originally expounded by Aristotle and demonstrated by Terry Pratchett. So, anything else is a compromise designed to prevent the ascension of a malign Tyrant.

It's worth noting that recent elections, whilst not necessarily returning MP's with absolute majorities have tended to reflect the national mood. We threw Labour out in 2010 but were only lukewarm on Cameron whilst quite enchanted with Clegg - result was a Lib-Dem Coalition. In 2015 we were ready to give David Cameron an actual working majority after he legislated for something like a Living Wage and homosexual marriage. In 2017 a lot of us felt Theresa May was the wrong person for the job but even more so didn't want Corbyn - Hung Parliament with minority Conservative Government. Then, 2019 a lot of people a sick and./or afraid of Corbyn, his hypocrisy, his racism and his general incompetence whilst Boris Johnson is offering higher wages, lower taxes and an end to Brexit.

Result: Thundering Conservative Majority.

[Montmorency]

It's worth noting that recent elections, whilst not necessarily returning MP's with absolute majorities have tended to reflect the national mood. We threw Labour out in 2010 but were only lukewarm on Cameron whilst quite enchanted with Clegg - result was a Lib-Dem Coalition. In 2015 we were ready to give David Cameron an actual working majority after he legislated for something like a Living Wage and homosexual marriage. In 2017 a lot of us felt Theresa May was the wrong person for the job but even more so didn't want Corbyn - Hung Parliament with minority Conservative Government. Then, 2019 a lot of people a sick and./or afraid of Corbyn, his hypocrisy, his racism and his general incompetence whilst Boris Johnson is offering higher wages, lower taxes and an end to Brexit.

Result: Thundering Conservative Majority.

The flaw in the "national mood" story is that the difference between a hung parliament and a thundering majority is 5% of the vote.

In short:
I recognise that society must change, which means it must move outside of the experience of the status quo. because, events!
Because we are moving outside the status quo in response to events, i don't want public policy defined by the 'argument' the competing parties have in their understanding of each other.
It limits the range of change into too small a bandwidth.

I agree in principle but, uh - so you are a radical!

[Furunculus]

Are you able to explain this a little better for me?

If I am understanding you correctly, you like this (which is different from this), and therefore you reject any systems which greatly encourage this.

If I understood you correctly, are you able explore your views of the criticisms?



As a side-note, I kind of see Majoritarian Democracy as what Marx meant by Tyranny of the Proletariat. ie: The workers have full control as they outnumber the bourgeoisie. In a very simplistic way.

In short:
I recognise that society must change, which means it must move outside of the experience of the status quo. because, events!
Because we are moving outside the status quo in response to events, i don't want public policy defined by the 'argument' the competing parties have in their understanding of each other.
It limits the range of change into too small a bandwidth.

What i see a majoritiarian electoral system giving me is radical policy (even if it is occasionally radical in the opposite direction to my preference).
Fail quickly, fail fast.
Adapt and thrive, fail and stagnate.

As a side effect of having to have the coalition in place before the election (within the party), it encourages the platform to be as wide as possible in order to appeal to an election winning common-ground as well as their voter heartlands. Where consensual systems lead to the coalition after the election (between parties), allowing manifesto's to be ejected, success/failure criteria difficult to establish, and permissive of fringe parties well outside the common ground to succeed, and be a part of policy making.

There's lots of good things about proportional/consensual politics, but lots of failings too.

[Pannonian]

In short:
I recognise that society must change, which means it must move outside of the experience of the status quo. because, events!
Because we are moving outside the status quo in response to events, i don't want public policy defined by the 'argument' the competing parties have in their understanding of each other.
It limits the range of change into too small a bandwidth.

What i see a majoritiarian electoral system giving me is radical policy (even if it is occasionally radical in the opposite direction to my preference).
Fail quickly, fail fast.
Adapt and thrive, fail and stagnate.

As a side effect of having to have the coalition in place before the election (within the party), it encourages the platform to be as wide as possible in order to appeal to an election winning common-ground as well as their voter heartlands. Where consensual systems lead to the coalition after the election (between parties), allowing manifesto's to be ejected, success/failure criteria difficult to establish, and permissive of fringe parties well outside the common ground to succeed, and be a part of policy making.

There's lots of good things about proportional/consensual politics, but lots of failings too.

At what point do you assess the success or failure of Brexit?

[Furunculus]

At what point do you assess the success or failure of Brexit?

https://professorbuzzkill.com/qnq-26-zhou-enlai/

[Pannonian]

https://professorbuzzkill.com/qnq-26-zhou-enlai/

You mean never. So basically you get to go for as radical a change as possible, regardless of mandate or not, and there is never any argument against it.

[Furunculus]

You mean never. So basically you get to go for as radical a change as possible, regardless of mandate or not, and there is never any argument against it.

yes. Precisely.

and you get to argue for some milquetoast consensual democracy where choice is carefully hemmed into a safe path via constitutional guardrails to make sure that tomorrow is quite like yesterday.

obviously, i think that is a terrible idea if we desire the long term survival of an adaptable and agile nation-state, but there we are...

[rory_20_uk]

At what point do you assess the success or failure of Brexit?

Radical change - leaving something that the UK only joined under 50 years ago and changed several times in the meantime.

When was the success or failure of the EU established? Given that what was initially joined was radically different to what was left, there surely was a review at each change. Or not.

Or more broadly, when is there a review of every major policy decision the government takes undertaken? Practically never.

A desire to bang the drum on one issue is on one hand laudable in how many threads can be derailed to the one issue, but is also very, very wearing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

At what point do you assess the success or failure of Brexit?

20-50 years.

Now, can we get off Brexit and back on topic, please?

[Pannonian]

20-50 years.

Now, can we get off Brexit and back on topic, please?

You and others turned the discussion to the benefits of the current electoral system. Furunculus argued that the system gives a mandate for radical reform. So I asked him how long it would take for the most radical recent reform to be assessed. Is this not a natural progression of your thread of discussion? Or does radical reform exist as some kind of eternal revolution a la Mao Zedong that does not need to be assessed, merely embarked on without thought of consequences?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You and others turned the discussion to the benefits of the current electoral system. Furunculus argued that the system gives a mandate for radical reform. So I asked him how long it would take for the most radical recent reform to be assessed. Is this not a natural progression of your thread of discussion? Or does radical reform exist as some kind of eternal revolution a la Mao Zedong that does not need to be assessed, merely embarked on without thought of consequences?

Those are escellent question, but they really belong in their own thread if you want to discuss them at length, for they are rather more serious that the topic at hand is meant to be.

I should be quite happy to contribute to such a thread, I might add.