Poll: Legislative Representation
Poll Options
View poll results: Legislative Representation
First-past-the-post
7 47%
Mixed member proportional representation
8 53%
Voters: 15.
#1
Which is a better voting system and why?

First-past-the-post - the candidate or party who receives the most votes wins

Mixed member proportional representation - seats in a legislative body are divvied up based upon the percentage of votes they receive
#2
First-past-the-post is my vote. The problem I have with the latter is that in some countries where such a system exists dangerous fascist parties have come very close to achieving considerable numbers in government or have done so. In a first-past-the-post system there is little or no chance that such a gradual rising of a dangerous party can occur or at least not here in the United States. This is amongst many other things. We could argue this for days and days.

Edit: I understand that fascism is not absolutely non-existent in first-past-the-post systems, but it is IMO lessened. Than again some argue it is simply put underground in such a system which makes it more dangerous. A lot to think about.
Last edited by Tyler.Allain at Mar 26, 2011,
#3
Quote by Tyler.Allain
The problem I have with the latter is that in some countries where such a system exists dangerous fascist parties have come very close to achieving considerable numbers in government or have done so..


I agree. We shouldn't allow people we don't agree with to get elected, no matter how many votes they get. Having two practically identical parties switch power every few years is much more democratic.
Last edited by Cloaca at Mar 26, 2011,
#4
I don't like the idea of mixed-member, so although I don't like FPTP either, I'll vote for FPTP.

Too young to vote for AV in the UK referendum though
Stand up and cheer if you like SimCity

Play Up Pompey, Pompey Play Up
THE WiLDHEARTS

Quote by goest
I'm going to take this opportunity to initiate my campaign to replace the phrase "Taking a shit" with "Busting a grumpy."
#5
Quote by Cloaca
I agree. We shouldn't allow people we don't agree with to get elected, no matter how many votes they get. Having two practically identical parties switch power every few years is much more democratic.


If the parties' goal is to deny anyone the opportunities offered to another class/race/etc then sorry but yes. Did you not read the word fascist? The first past the post system is no less democratic than the alternative. Also you would still have parties in the alternative as well. People uniting for common cause is in human nature. Avoiding factions, interest groups, or parties is impossible. They would align themselves regardless. Sure the parties would be more in abundance, but the U.S system, as opposed to parliament in other countries allows for people of opposing opinions to run on common party platforms. In some European democracies a party has the right to deny one the opportunity from running on their platform, or if they vote against the party they can be kicked out.
Last edited by Tyler.Allain at Mar 26, 2011,
#6
First past the post.
Quote by Boonnoo666
Another factor that has grown this myth is a bunch of opinionated guys who really don't know what they're talking about, which to be brutally honest is a bunch of you guys on here.
#7
Quote by Tyler.Allain
If the parties' goal is to deny anyone the opportunities offered to another class/race/etc then sorry but yes. Did you not read the word fascist?


It should be quite simple, really.

Party gets most votes -> party wins.

Think about this for a second, will you. When you've finished thinking about it, which I suspect will occur at about 21:38 GMT, consider this: if the party in power can start laying restrictions on which party can and can't win the election, why not stop at the right-wingers? Why not ban any party which believes in policy x, when policy x happens to be a central tenet to the current opposition party's manifesto?

Whichever system can be summed up as "Party gets most votes unless we disagree with it -> party wins" is a lot of things; it sure as fuck ain't democratic.
Last edited by Cloaca at Mar 26, 2011,
#9
Quote by Cloaca
It should be quite simple, really.

Party gets most votes -> party wins.

Think about this for a second, will you. When you've finished thinking about it, which I suspect will occur at about 21:35 GMT, consider this: if the party in power can start laying restrictions on which party can and can't win the election, why not stop at the right-wingers? Why not ban any party which believes in policy x, when policy x happens to be a central tenet to the current opposition party's manifesto?

Whichever system can be summed up as "Party gets most votes unless we disagree with it -> party wins" is a lot of things; it sure as fuck ain't democratic.


Reread my post. I added a lot of stuff while you were writing this to further explain myself. I understand what you are saying, and I agree. However, the simple election style itself does not have the effect you arguing. I believe the right for a party to run on whatever the hell they believe in, but in a first-past-the-post system the minority is further protected from the gradual rise of a tyrannical majority. Democracy is not perfect in any form. Someone will always have a problem with it in one way or another, but I think it is important to protect humanity from itself, and a first-past-the-post system is more inclined to do so. Democracy is also not a clearly defined term so please don't make claims that one thing is or is not democratic.
#10
Quote by Tyler.Allain
Reread my post. I added a lot of stuff while you were writing this to further explain myself. I understand what you are saying, and I agree.


Well, er, you clearly don't. You went from "Stop the BNP from getting big" to some legitimate points about the problems which revolve around PR, dropping your earlier point altogether. I take your other points, but I think your original and true motivation is absurd, and that you're covering it up by trotting out the downsides which we are already all aware of.

I honestly flip-flop between FPTP, AV and PR myself, but at least I'm not supporting the locking of people out of the process because I don't like them much.

However, the simple election style itself does not have the effect you arguing. I believe the right for a party to run on whatever the hell they believe in, but in a first-past-the-post system the minority is further protected from the gradual rise of a tyrannical majority.


Eh? How on earth does that happen? In case you hadn't noticed, the (relative) majority in the English parliament can currently do pretty much whatever the cunt it wants to!

Quote by Tyler.Allain
Democracy is also not a clearly defined term so please don't make claims that one thing is or is not democratic.


Perhaps, but I'll tell you this: excluding people from the electoral process on the basis of their beliefs, however unpleasant they may be, can't be considered democratic under any definition of the word which I'm aware of. It's one person, one vote. Not one non-x (where x = fascist, communist, racist, social democrat, fiscal conservative, social conservative etc etc), one vote.
Last edited by Cloaca at Mar 26, 2011,
#11
Quote by Cloaca
Well, er, you clearly don't. You went from "Stop the BNP from getting big" to some legitimate points about the problems which revolve around PR, dropping your earlier point altogether. I take your other points, but I think your original and true motivation is absurd, and that you're covering it up by trotting out the downsides which we are already all aware of.

I honestly flip-flop between FPTP, AV and PR myself, but at least I'm not supporting the locking of people out of the process because I don't like them much.



Eh? How on earth does that happen? In case you hadn't noticed, the (relative) majority in the English parliament can currently do pretty much whatever the cunt it wants to!


Perhaps, but I'll tell you this: excluding people from the electoral process on the basis of their beliefs, however unpleasant they may be, can't be considered democratic under any definition of the word which I'm aware of. It's one person, one vote. Not one non-x (where x = fascist, communist, racist, social democrat, fiscal conservative, social conservative), one vote.


Clearly we can't/don't agree and I think we are getting at two completely non-opposing points. Boiling it down. I think First-Past-The-Post is better as it keeps out radicals in any way shape or form left or right more effectively in large numbers. I think that is something to be said good things about as centrism and compromise can be more easily achieved through this. Does it happen in the U.S or other places for that matter where first-past-the-post systems exist? No, but that is for other reasons. I think people are less likely to vote for a radical candidate which is unrealistic to achieve election in a first-past-the-post system than they would in a population representation system. They would much rather vote for someone whom they more or less agree with that has a realistic shot at election. I've said my piece. I'm out of here
Last edited by Tyler.Allain at Mar 26, 2011,
#12
Quote by Cloaca
I agree. We shouldn't allow people we don't agree with to get elected, no matter how many votes they get. Having two practically identical parties switch power every few years is much more democratic.


Voting for one party can be interpreted as voting against the others. Thus, it would be undemocratic to give them any power.

Anyway, that's how fringe groups gain traction. It happened in Germany....
#13
Mixed numbers, like it is now. It gives a more accurate representation of the populace. Though they should enforce some limitations on the number of groups committed to the same cause and the views represented.
#14
Do you think a party having 1 or 2 persentiles of your parliament will have any say in anythng? We have that propotional system here in Norway, and yet no fascists festering about in Stortinget (the parliament)
Last edited by GisleAune at Mar 26, 2011,