At the moment - @MrMandid, it's you I'm looking at - we have a system which means that I, for one, don't accept the legitimacy of any government the UK gets.
Fair enough, your choice. Do as you wish. If that extends to not complying to laws made by governments (on the grounds that the government is not "legitimate") then again, your choice, as long as that also extends to both other people choosing to do likewise AND (to avoid any hypocrisy) you do not avail yourself of any of the services (NHS, schools, roads, benefits etc etc) that is fine and dandy by me. Just don't expect any sympathy if a judge sees things differently.
@MrMandid you clearly haven't read the whole of my post. I covered the substance of your riposte when I expressly said, of those who lack proper legitimacy for their hold on power,
"Prudence, St Paul's words to the Romans and pragmatic recognition of who has the legal force behind them, means one obeys the law. One does not owe people who are in power merely by either of those means any loyalty or support."
@MrMandid you clearly haven't read the whole of my post. I expressly said, of those who lack proper legitimacy for their hold on power,
Prudence, St Paul's words to the Romans and pragmatic recognition of who has the legal force behind them, means one obeys the law. One does not owe people who are in power merely by either of those means any loyalty or support.
You're mistaken when you assume I did not read all of your post.
@MrMandid you clearly haven't read the whole of my post. I expressly said, of those who lack proper legitimacy for their hold on power,
Prudence, St Paul's words to the Romans and pragmatic recognition of who has the legal force behind them, means one obeys the law. One does not owe people who are in power merely by either of those means any loyalty or support.
You're mistaken when you assume I did not read all of your post.
Then why do you think he's not going to take part in wider society because he see Johnson as illegitimate? If you read all of his post, you certainly didn't manage to comprehend it.
Alternative Vote. You vote in order of preference. If there is a tie then the second choices are taken into account and onward. The UK did it once. Not for Parliament though.
Not a tie, but rather a failure of any candidate to get 50% plus 1 of the votes. In that event, there are different ways to continue. In preferential voting, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the second choices of the votes for that candidate are distributed. Then so on, until one candidate gets the magic number.
Proportional voting works in reverse, as it were. Surplus votes of the most successful candidate are distributed, but each only counts for a proportion of a full vote. That's a simple description, the actual system and the counting is far too complicated for me. If you want to look further, look at Hare-Clarke systems, or voting in the Australian Senate/Tasmanian lower house for full details.
@MrMandid you clearly haven't read the whole of my post. I expressly said, of those who lack proper legitimacy for their hold on power,
Prudence, St Paul's words to the Romans and pragmatic recognition of who has the legal force behind them, means one obeys the law. One does not owe people who are in power merely by either of those means any loyalty or support.
You're mistaken when you assume I did not read all of your post.
Then why do you think he's not going to take part in wider society because he see Johnson as illegitimate? If you read all of his post, you certainly didn't manage to comprehend it.
Coz he said he didnt consider ANY government legitimate since about 1980 (bar the coalition), but note my reply said "if".
Coz he said he didnt consider ANY government legitimate since about 1980 (bar the coalition), but note my reply said "if".
No UK Government (bar the coalition, if you count it) has had more than 50% of the vote since the war, if that's your metric. 1970 is the most recent time any governing party had more than 45% of the vote. I don't know what's special about 1980.
Labour's peak vote share (ever) was actually in the 1951 election, where Attlee won 48.8% of the vote, but lost to Churchill with 48.0%. The current government has the most support of any (non-coalition) government since Mrs Thatcher in 1979, and more support than any Labour government since Harold Wilson's 1966 snap election landslide.
At the moment - @MrMandid, it's you I'm looking at - we have a system which means that I, for one, don't accept the legitimacy of any government the UK gets.
Fair enough, your choice. Do as you wish. If that extends to not complying to laws made by governments (on the grounds that the government is not "legitimate") then again, your choice, as long as that also extends to both other people choosing to do likewise AND (to avoid any hypocrisy) you do not avail yourself of any of the services (NHS, schools, roads, benefits etc etc) that is fine and dandy by me. Just don't expect any sympathy if a judge sees things differently.
If Enoch pays his taxes and national insurance he is entitled to many of those things.
Also you can disagree with something whilst at the same time having to live with it. I think zero hours contracts are nasty. They work only for a few people, but a lot people are on them. I have to put up with that being the way things are, I don’t have to like it. I am not on a zero hours contract just to be clear
Coz he said he didnt consider ANY government legitimate since about 1980 (bar the coalition), but note my reply said "if".
No UK Government (bar the coalition, if you count it) has had more than 50% of the vote since the war, if that's your metric. 1970 is the most recent time any governing party had more than 45% of the vote. I don't know what's special about 1980.
Labour's peak vote share (ever) was actually in the 1951 election, where Attlee won 48.8% of the vote, but lost to Churchill with 48.0%. The current government has the most support of any (non-coalition) government since Mrs Thatcher in 1979, and more support than any Labour government since Harold Wilson's 1966 snap election landslide.
I was more questioning the term "legitimate" rather than disputing election results. Now, one may personally believe that any election that was won by receiving less than 50% of the overall vote is "illegitimate" however I would argue that this view was incorrect. In this sense my view is that what defines legitimate or illegitimate is defined by what is agreed by law, and it is agreed by law that a political party may form government by receiving less than 50% of the overall votes. Ergo ALL governments in the UK in recent times have been "legitimate".
Coz he said he didnt consider ANY government legitimate since about 1980 (bar the coalition), but note my reply said "if".
No UK Government (bar the coalition, if you count it) has had more than 50% of the vote since the war, if that's your metric. 1970 is the most recent time any governing party had more than 45% of the vote. I don't know what's special about 1980.
Labour's peak vote share (ever) was actually in the 1951 election, where Attlee won 48.8% of the vote, but lost to Churchill with 48.0%. The current government has the most support of any (non-coalition) government since Mrs Thatcher in 1979, and more support than any Labour government since Harold Wilson's 1966 snap election landslide.
I was more questioning the term "legitimate" rather than disputing election results. Now, one may personally believe that any election that was won by receiving less than 50% of the overall vote is "illegitimate" however I would argue that this view was incorrect. In this sense my view is that what defines legitimate or illegitimate is defined by what is agreed by law, and it is agreed by law that a political party may form government by receiving less than 50% of the overall votes. Ergo ALL governments in the UK in recent times have been "legitimate".
I think there is more than meaning of "legitimate", or rather more than one set of "laws" by which one might assess legitimacy. This isn't a new or particularly controversial idea - what China is doing in Hong Kong is legitimate in the sense that it is done in accordance with Chinese law, but illegitimate in a moral sense and arguably in the sense of international treaties. By law Maduro is president of Venezuela, but legitimacy has been conferred on the leader of the opposition by foreign powers, including UK courts.
So for you then "legitimate" is that which is agreed by law but also what you personally deem to be "morally right"?
I think legitimacy requires a degree of collective recognition, it's not necessarily about morality. I can think that the Nazis were the legitimate government of Germany in the 1930s while still thinking their actions an illegitimate use of power. I don't think it's clear cut.
So for you then "legitimate" is that which is agreed by law but also what you personally deem to be "morally right"?
I think legitimacy requires a degree of collective recognition, it's not necessarily about morality. I can think that the Nazis were the legitimate government of Germany in the 1930s while still thinking their actions an illegitimate use of power. I don't think it's clear cut.
I agree that I don't think it's "clear cut" if we wish to delve deeper. However Enoch seemed to think IT WAS clear cut. Any government in the UK that received less than 50% of the overall vote was in his view "illegitimate".
So for you then "legitimate" is that which is agreed by law but also what you personally deem to be "morally right"?
I think legitimacy requires a degree of collective recognition, it's not necessarily about morality. I can think that the Nazis were the legitimate government of Germany in the 1930s while still thinking their actions an illegitimate use of power. I don't think it's clear cut.
I agree that I don't think it's "clear cut" if we wish to delve deeper. However Enoch seemed to think IT WAS clear cut. Any government in the UK that received less than 50% of the overall vote was in his view "illegitimate".
Enoch can speak for himself, but I can see a good argument that a legitimate government in a democracy should have the support of at least 50% of the electorate. It is worthwhile to consider whether the sweeping changes UK governments can make are reasonable if they have the backing of less than half of voters.
So for you then "legitimate" is that which is agreed by law but also what you personally deem to be "morally right"?
I think legitimacy requires a degree of collective recognition, it's not necessarily about morality. I can think that the Nazis were the legitimate government of Germany in the 1930s while still thinking their actions an illegitimate use of power. I don't think it's clear cut.
I agree that I don't think it's "clear cut" if we wish to delve deeper. However Enoch seemed to think IT WAS clear cut. Any government in the UK that received less than 50% of the overall vote was in his view "illegitimate".
Enoch can speak for himself, but I can see a good argument that a legitimate government in a democracy should have the support of at least 50% of the electorate. It is worthwhile to consider whether the sweeping changes UK governments can make are reasonable if they have the backing of less than half of voters.
Legitimate means "conforming to the law or to rules". These apply to the status of governments elected in the UK irrespective of what mental gymnastics people try to go through.
Enoch can speak for himself, but I can see a good argument that a legitimate government in a democracy should have the support of at least 50% of the electorate. It is worthwhile to consider whether the sweeping changes UK governments can make are reasonable if they have the backing of less than half of voters.
The problem with this argument is that it since the Conservative electoral victory in 1900, the only UK governments that have received more than 50% of the votes are the wartime coalitions, the National Government in the aftermath of the Great Depression (1931 and 1935 elections) and the Conservative / Lib Dem coalition in 2010.
Which makes sweeping changes such as the NHS, the modern welfare state, Thatcher's reforms & privatization, upgrading the EEC to the EU, and so on all illegitimate. Joining the EEC gets a pass, because that was confirmed by a referendum.
And that doesn't really match the public opinion, does it?
So for you then "legitimate" is that which is agreed by law but also what you personally deem to be "morally right"?
I think legitimacy requires a degree of collective recognition, it's not necessarily about morality. I can think that the Nazis were the legitimate government of Germany in the 1930s while still thinking their actions an illegitimate use of power. I don't think it's clear cut.
I agree that I don't think it's "clear cut" if we wish to delve deeper. However Enoch seemed to think IT WAS clear cut. Any government in the UK that received less than 50% of the overall vote was in his view "illegitimate".
Enoch can speak for himself, but I can see a good argument that a legitimate government in a democracy should have the support of at least 50% of the electorate. It is worthwhile to consider whether the sweeping changes UK governments can make are reasonable if they have the backing of less than half of voters.
Legitimate means "conforming to the law or to rules". These apply to the status of governments elected in the UK irrespective of what mental gymnastics people try to go through.
That is indeed one of the dictionary definitions. But, as I mentioned, which rules and whose laws? There is a good case to be made that democracy is the rule of the majority, and hence a government does not have democratic legitimacy without the support of a majority of the population. Now, I think you could also argue a degree of implied support, in that by participating in elections under the system we have you agree to accept the result and hence the legitimacy of the government elected thereby.
I'm sure you'll get over it all Alan. I mean do keep protesting and all but whatever dude.
There are better places to discuss Brexit than this thread, and I speak for myself rather than Alan; but for me: I'll get over it when the NHS gets an extra £350m per week
As will become blindingly obvious to EVERYONE but the totally delusional by this time next year, virtually no one voted for what Brexit actually is.
Of course a thread on Johnson will always touch on Brexit coz it's so tied up with him personally. That he saw in Brexit a vehicle for advancing Boris. The fact that he has been successful in this doesn't change the fact that he is a total fuckwit. Nor does it change the vicious reality of a No Deal Brexit that will almost certainly hit us at the end of this year. And, ultimately, despite all the ridiculous nonsense spouting here and elsewhere, it doesn't change the fact that Brexit is a complete affront to democracy.
So on the day the now imfamous Russia report came out, it is worth noting this: The evidence from the committee is categorical that a full investigation into Russia's involvement in the Brexit referendum is absolutely indicated. But don't worry, our illustrious Prime Minister has already ruled it out.
So for you then "legitimate" is that which is agreed by law but also what you personally deem to be "morally right"?
I think legitimacy requires a degree of collective recognition, it's not necessarily about morality. I can think that the Nazis were the legitimate government of Germany in the 1930s while still thinking their actions an illegitimate use of power. I don't think it's clear cut.
I agree that I don't think it's "clear cut" if we wish to delve deeper. However Enoch seemed to think IT WAS clear cut. Any government in the UK that received less than 50% of the overall vote was in his view "illegitimate".
Enoch can speak for himself, but I can see a good argument that a legitimate government in a democracy should have the support of at least 50% of the electorate. It is worthwhile to consider whether the sweeping changes UK governments can make are reasonable if they have the backing of less than half of voters.
Untill the rules are changed, a legitimate government is able to pass a budget and win votes of No Confidence.
Yes until the rules change. Many people see our first passed the post system as second rate. It is however the one we have. So barring any irregularities, the party with most seats is the winner. It is what we have to work with.
The problem I think is that though the Conservatives legitimately won the election and Boris being prime mister is a consequence, the actions of Boris and his supporters seem morally dubious at times. As I said trying to prorogue Parliament, sacking those who disagreed with him, the blatant untrue facts touted during the referendum all point to a man who can not be trusted. That is not to do with his political leanings but his moral compass. A compass that seems to have broken
The problem I think is that though the Conservatives legitimately won the election and Boris being prime mister is a consequence, the actions of Boris and his supporters seem morally dubious at times.
Yes, won using the FPTP system of voting and from what Alan Cresswell said on an earlier thread, a gerrymandered systems of constituencies.
There are problems with the constituency system we have, I know recently I was arguing for a smaller number of larger multi-member constituencies (for more proportional representation) and commenting that some constituencies are too large and mixed (eg: an urban constituency with a large rural minority area) which is, I admit, somewhat at odds with the argument for larger constituencies. But, I don't recall ever claiming there was gerrymandering.
My preference would certainly be for a different way of electing our representatives (indeed, our whole system of government - which in my ideal world would include significant devolution of powers to local level), but I also recognise that that would also have it's own set of problems. However, the 2019 election result was conducted within the system we have, and I don't consider any government elected within the system as legitimate ... even if I might call the system itself illegitimate. That doesn't, of course, mean that everything a government does once in power is legitimate - in particular, I have big issues with a government acting in a manner different from what they had said they'd act in their manifesto.
If you remember back to the thread concerning the representation of the residents of a Scottish island, you were very happy for the local electorate to consist only of the island although that left the electorate with a population well below the national average. That's a form of gerrymandering in my book.
Yes, I did say that constituencies should represent natural communities - even if that doesn't respect an ideal of similar size (by population) for constituencies. I also discussed my own constituency of about 70k urban constituents and 15k rural, where it would be natural for the campaigning and activities of the elected MP to focus on the urban majority leaving the rural members somewhat disenfranchised, again constituency boundaries that don't respect the natural communities. Is it gerrymandering? I'd always taken gerrymandering to relate to changing boundaries with the intent of favouring a particular party, which seems somewhat different to noting that current boundaries imperfectly map on natural communities out of a desire to have approximately equal number of voters in each. And, of course, I don't think there's been any gerrymandering in the current boundaries such that this could raise a question about the legitimacy of any recent election results.
I live in a community which is divided into three wards for district council elections. The part-ward I live in is too small to be a ward itself and too large to be added into the other two wards. Instead, to make it the right size it is linked with another area with which it has no direct connection. All ‘our’ councillors live in the other area, and all can probably get elected without our votes, but at least the numbers look right!
If you remember back to the thread concerning the representation of the residents of a Scottish island, you were very happy for the local electorate to consist only of the island although that left the electorate with a population well below the national average. That's a form of gerrymandering in my book.
There is no Scottish island that has its own MP. There are two constituencies defined in statute as comprising only specific island groups, one comprising the Outer Hebrides, the other Orkney and Shetland. Other islands, including my own, are subsumed into mainland constituencies. The logic of the divide is not entirely clear, as we're a good bit further from the mainland than Orkney. I don't see the island constituencies as gerrymandering as they don't convey a particular advantage to one party. They're more akin to the sort of impulse that gives the US states equal representation in the senate - that the needs and interests of some places are sufficiently different that without separate representation they'll be completely drowned out.
Alan Cresswell, that certainly was the original meaning of gerrymandering and is one of the current ones. Another current one is the use of special boundary requirements to favour one group, and that's how I understood your posts - it was legitimate to have an electorate for the island alone even though that resulted in an electorate that was much smaller than the norm.
Arethosemyfeet, my recollection of the earlier thread was that the reference was to one of the western islands, not the Orkneys or Hebrides. The message I took from Alan Cresswell's post was that it was wrong to expect an MP to travel a half hour on a ferry to see his island constituents, and unfair to those constituents to wait a few days to have their MP visit the island. The result was that the island was a constituency and had a much smaller number of electors than mainland electorates.
Alan Cresswell, that certainly was the original meaning of gerrymandering and is one of the current ones. Another current one is the use of special boundary requirements to favour one group, and that's how I understood your posts - it was legitimate to have an electorate for the island alone even though that resulted in an electorate that was much smaller than the norm.
I've not come across a use of 'gerrymander' except in the context of attempting to give one political party an edge over the others.
Arethosemyfeet, my recollection of the earlier thread was that the reference was to one of the western islands, not the Orkneys or Hebrides. The message I took from Alan Cresswell's post was that it was wrong to expect an MP to travel a half hour on a ferry to see his island constituents, and unfair to those constituents to wait a few days to have their MP visit the island. The result was that the island was a constituency and had a much smaller number of electors than mainland electorates.
As I recall the question was about Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles) which is a single Westminster constituency covering several islands in the Outer Hebrides, with a significantly smaller electorate than the average. There have in the past been proposals to include the Inner Hebrides (Skye etc) or merge this constituency with Orkney and Shetland, to make constituencies that are closer to the average for Westminster. The objections that have been raised to these suggestions are based on cultural differences (the Inner Hebrides have a much more 'Mainland' feel to them, Shetland is economically distinct with a much more varied population due to the oil/gas industry, Orkney and Shetland retain their Scandinavian character far more, Gaidhlig is the first language in some islands etc), as well as the resulting geographical size of the resulting constituency (which would mean ferry rides well in excess of an hour to get between different parts of the constituency, assuming they're running). My argument was always along the lines of "natural communities" - to join islands with the mainland joins two groups of people with very different situations, to join different groups of islands with minimal (if any) direct communication isn't natural, etc.
Alan Cresswell, that certainly was the original meaning of gerrymandering and is one of the current ones. Another current one is the use of special boundary requirements to favour one group, and that's how I understood your posts - it was legitimate to have an electorate for the island alone even though that resulted in an electorate that was much smaller than the norm.
I've not come across a use of 'gerrymander' except in the context of attempting to give one political party an edge over the others.
Arethosemyfeet, my recollection of the earlier thread was that the reference was to one of the western islands, not the Orkneys or Hebrides. The message I took from Alan Cresswell's post was that it was wrong to expect an MP to travel a half hour on a ferry to see his island constituents, and unfair to those constituents to wait a few days to have their MP visit the island. The result was that the island was a constituency and had a much smaller number of electors than mainland electorates.
As I recall the question was about Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles) which is a single Westminster constituency covering several islands in the Outer Hebrides, with a significantly smaller electorate than the average. There have in the past been proposals to include the Inner Hebrides (Skye etc) or merge this constituency with Orkney and Shetland, to make constituencies that are closer to the average for Westminster. The objections that have been raised to these suggestions are based on cultural differences (the Inner Hebrides have a much more 'Mainland' feel to them, Shetland is economically distinct with a much more varied population due to the oil/gas industry, Orkney and Shetland retain their Scandinavian character far more, Gaidhlig is the first language in some islands etc), as well as the resulting geographical size of the resulting constituency (which would mean ferry rides well in excess of an hour to get between different parts of the constituency, assuming they're running). My argument was always along the lines of "natural communities" - to join islands with the mainland joins two groups of people with very different situations, to join different groups of islands with minimal (if any) direct communication isn't natural, etc.
I think this could only be claimed by someone really ignorant of the Inner Hebrides. If anything it's Lewis, with its big supermarkets, high street and so on that's more like the mainland. It's also a shorter ferry journey from the mainland to Lewis than it is to where I live. Skye, with its mainland bridge, can be argued to be closer to Ross than to the rest of the isles, but that's about it. The truth is, however, that the isles on the west coast vary considerably. I'm pretty certain, however, that my island has a lot more in common with Barra than it does with Helensburgh.
Maybe just on overly tourist-centric view. I could go for a 2-3 day visit to Mull or Arran, both being a shortish train trip from Glasgow with another short ferry crossing. But, it'll take so long to get to Lewis that I'd want a week there minimum to make it worthwhile. I sort of vaguely thought about the reverse - someone on Mull or Arran could probably manage a trip to Glasgow or Edinburgh to see a play or visit big shops without being too big a hassle, but from Lewis it would be a significant undertaking. I admit Stornoway is a town to rival many mainland towns (Fort William would be a similar size, Aviemore etc) and far bigger than anywhere on other islands I've visited.
Maybe just on overly tourist-centric view. I could go for a 2-3 day visit to Mull or Arran, both being a shortish train trip from Glasgow with another short ferry crossing. But, it'll take so long to get to Lewis that I'd want a week there minimum to make it worthwhile. I sort of vaguely thought about the reverse - someone on Mull or Arran could probably manage a trip to Glasgow or Edinburgh to see a play or visit big shops without being too big a hassle, but from Lewis it would be a significant undertaking. I admit Stornoway is a town to rival many mainland towns (Fort William would be a similar size, Aviemore etc) and far bigger than anywhere on other islands I've visited.
If I wanted a short break on Lewis I'd want to fly, but that's probably true for Islay as well. The inhabited islands in the Outer Hebrides are also much better connected. You can hop from Barra to the Uists to Benbecula, to Lewis-Harris and so on with relative ease. Getting from Colonsay to, well, anywhere is a pretty tricky endeavour.
I could go for a 2-3 day visit to Mull or Arran, both being a shortish train trip from Glasgow with another short ferry crossing. But, it'll take so long to get to Lewis that I'd want a week there minimum to make it worthwhile.
Dude, there's an airport in Stornoway, with a flight from Glasgow that isn't even long enough to drink a cup of tea. Sure - if it's foggy, the plane won't land, and the airstrip sticks out in to the sea, so that happens.
john holdingEcclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
[tangent] There are three of four constituencies in Canada where there is little or no surface connection between communities , and where scheduled air service can take a day or more with one or more transfers to get from a community on one side of the constituency to another. I expect there are similar situations in Australia. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of the less-populated US states have a similar problem.
And yet they all work. I read complaints about the situation in the less densely populated parts of Scotland with some sympathy, but with a certain sense that others have it far worse and manage to get on with it without complaining about geography. [/tangent]
I think the real point is that, in terms of gerrymandering and electoral bias, Na h-Eileanan an Iar doesn't matter, because it's one constituency out of 650. It's not necessary to make the effect of constituency size zero, as long as it's small. Having one extra Scottish MP isn't that big a deal.
There are problems that are actually worth solving (Welsh constituencies are all undersized, for example - Wales needs to give up about 8 MPs), but there are also advantages to having constituency boundaries follow natural divisions.
So for you then "legitimate" is that which is agreed by law but also what you personally deem to be "morally right"?
I think legitimacy requires a degree of collective recognition, it's not necessarily about morality. I can think that the Nazis were the legitimate government of Germany in the 1930s while still thinking their actions an illegitimate use of power. I don't think it's clear cut.
I agree that I don't think it's "clear cut" if we wish to delve deeper. However Enoch seemed to think IT WAS clear cut. Any government in the UK that received less than 50% of the overall vote was in his view "illegitimate".
Enoch can speak for himself, but I can see a good argument that a legitimate government in a democracy should have the support of at least 50% of the electorate. It is worthwhile to consider whether the sweeping changes UK governments can make are reasonable if they have the backing of less than half of voters.
Legitimate means "conforming to the law or to rules". These apply to the status of governments elected in the UK irrespective of what mental gymnastics people try to go through.
That is indeed one of the dictionary definitions. But, as I mentioned, which rules and whose laws? There is a good case to be made that democracy is the rule of the majority, and hence a government does not have democratic legitimacy without the support of a majority of the population. Now, I think you could also argue a degree of implied support, in that by participating in elections under the system we have you agree to accept the result and hence the legitimacy of the government elected thereby.
Aside from a debate about the definition of "legitimate" the argument of 50% assumes that all those who didn't vote for the Party that gained the highest number of votes (but not enough to pass 50%) were voting AGAINST that party. They may not have been.
So, this can be resolved by each constituency adopting AV.
Being:
Under the alternative vote system proposed in the referendum, voters would still be electing just one candidate associated with one geographic constituency. Instead of simply voting for one candidate on the ballot paper (with an 'X'), the voter would instead be asked to rank one or more of the candidates in order of preference. If after first preferences have been counted, no one candidate has a majority of the votes cast, then the bottom candidate will be eliminated and votes for that candidate are transferred to each voter's next available preference. The process continues repeatedly until one candidate reaches a majority and wins. The system proposed was a form of "optional preferential voting", in that voters would not be obliged to rank every candidate in order of preference in order to cast a valid vote.
This would then ensure that each MP was elected by 50%.
However, this proposal was rejected (heavily) in the 2011 referendum.
Aside from a debate about the definition of "legitimate" the argument of 50% assumes that all those who didn't vote for the Party that gained the highest number of votes (but not enough to pass 50%) were voting AGAINST that party. They may not have been.
So, this can be resolved by each constituency adopting AV.
AV is one solution, but it only really provides for each candidate having the support of 50% of voters in their constituency, it doesn't mitigate against disproportionately large parliamentary majorities. The d'Hondt system used in Scotland is another method. It's not perfect, but it does go some way to prevent the "elective dictatorship" that usually happens at Westminster and the chaos that happens when it doesn't. The problem with AV is that it tends to silence minority voices spread over a wide area even more effectively than FPTP, and it can produce some very strange and polarising results.
This would then ensure that each MP was elected by 50%.
However, this proposal was rejected (heavily) in the 2011 referendum.
Instant Runoff / Single Transferable Vote is a sub-par way of selecting a compromise winner for a single-winner election. If you want a method to select a compromise candidate from each constituency, there are better methods.
More important, I think, is the idea of a per-constituency compromise candidate itself. This is poorly matched to the current British political structure. If what you want is a government / parliament that is actually representative of the people, you want some form of proportional representation (which IRV / STV / AV is not). The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly approach this with their system of extra regional members on the party list. This achieves reasonable proportionality, at the cost of making it more difficult for voters to eliminate a specific politician, because they can always get in on the list.
This would then ensure that each MP was elected by 50%.
However, this proposal was rejected (heavily) in the 2011 referendum.
Instant Runoff / Single Transferable Vote is a sub-par way of selecting a compromise winner for a single-winner election. If you want a method to select a compromise candidate from each constituency, there are better methods.
More important, I think, is the idea of a per-constituency compromise candidate itself. This is poorly matched to the current British political structure. If what you want is a government / parliament that is actually representative of the people, you want some form of proportional representation (which IRV / STV / AV is not). The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly approach this with their system of extra regional members on the party list. This achieves reasonable proportionality, at the cost of making it more difficult for voters to eliminate a specific politician, because they can always get in on the list.
So, elect a govt that suggests such. A more progressive approach was offered and utterly rejected. Saying "I think this would be better" is all well and good but utterly meaningless unless you find sufficient support and then get into power those who are suggesting it. Complain as much as you like but you are whistling in the wind.
So, elect a govt that suggests such. A more progressive approach was offered and utterly rejected. Saying "I think this would be better" is all well and good but utterly meaningless unless you find sufficient support and then get into power those who are suggesting it. Complain as much as you like but you are whistling in the wind.
IRV / AV is not "a more progressive approach". There's nothing "progressive" about it. I might well support a proportional system, but I wouldn't support AV, because I don't see it as being an improvement on FPTP.
I'm not complaining, and I don't see how you can read what I wrote as "complaining". I am, however, pointing out that your argument (that AV would solve the 50% representation "issue") is nonsense.
So, elect a govt that suggests such. A more progressive approach was offered and utterly rejected. Saying "I think this would be better" is all well and good but utterly meaningless unless you find sufficient support and then get into power those who are suggesting it. Complain as much as you like but you are whistling in the wind.
IRV / AV is not "a more progressive approach". There's nothing "progressive" about it. I might well support a proportional system, but I wouldn't support AV, because I don't see it as being an improvement on FPTP.
I'm not complaining, and I don't see how you can read what I wrote as "complaining". I am, however, pointing out that your argument (that AV would solve the 50% representation "issue") is nonsense.
AV by constituency is progressive because it allows for a system whereby the citizens of any constituency can elect an MP by 50% albeit by second choice preference. This is more progressive than a simple FPTP system. It's not nonsense because it retains close geographical representation and allows people to be represented more fairly.
I'm a big fan of AV for the reasons already mentioned but it would also change voter behaviour and grow smaller parties in the long term.
For example, there is a significant number of people who would like to vote Green but never do because they feel they must vote Labour. We would very quickly learn the true level of support for each party.
Moreover, I would postulate that if we'd introduced AV we would not have Brexit and quite possibly not had Windrush. With UKIP supporters able to vote Tory as their second choice, the shift of the Conservative party to ape UKIP policies would not make sense and probably wouldn't have worked.
So, elect a govt that suggests such. A more progressive approach was offered and utterly rejected. Saying "I think this would be better" is all well and good but utterly meaningless unless you find sufficient support and then get into power those who are suggesting it. Complain as much as you like but you are whistling in the wind.
IRV / AV is not "a more progressive approach". There's nothing "progressive" about it. I might well support a proportional system, but I wouldn't support AV, because I don't see it as being an improvement on FPTP.
I'm not complaining, and I don't see how you can read what I wrote as "complaining". I am, however, pointing out that your argument (that AV would solve the 50% representation "issue") is nonsense.
AV by constituency is progressive because it allows for a system whereby the citizens of any constituency can elect an MP by 50% albeit by second choice preference. This is more progressive than a simple FPTP system. It's not nonsense because it retains close geographical representation and allows people to be represented more fairly.
AV by constituency is simply tinkering around the edge of the elective dictatorship. This needs to be fundamentally altered. We need a system that can deal with uncertainty and positively provides for the operation of coalitions rather than regarding them as some kind of shameful thing. That says nothing about the nature of the most recent alleged coalition; this is a matter of the system and how it relates to the votes cast.
AV by constituency is progressive because it allows for a system whereby the citizens of any constituency can elect an MP by 50% albeit by second choice preference. This is more progressive than a simple FPTP system. It's not nonsense because it retains close geographical representation and allows people to be represented more fairly.
Let's consider for a moment a simple left-right one dimensional political distribution. No single issue parties, just everyone spread out on a line.
In a FPTP system, there is one stable solution (basically a centre-right and a centre-left party (centred on whatever the current consensus centre is) fighing over the middle voters, and assuming they get everyone on "their" side, and an unstable solution (big centre party excluding both extremes, but this is vulnerable to attacks from the side)
In a compromise vote system, there's one stable solution (everyone compromises on the candidate in the political centre).
An actual representative system would end up with a parliament that looked something like its citizenry (some on the right, some on the left, some in the middle).
Moreover, I would postulate that if we'd introduced AV we would not have Brexit and quite possibly not had Windrush. With UKIP supporters able to vote Tory as their second choice, the shift of the Conservative party to ape UKIP policies would not make sense and probably wouldn't have worked.
Whilst I agree with you on the desirability of Brexit and the Windrush scandal, I don't think that "AV means parties don't have to bother trying to accommodate potential voter's preferences because they'll get them as second or third choice anyway" either makes a great argument, or supports MrMandid's contention that such a scheme would select a government with >50% support (unless we're defining "marginally less bad than the other lot" as support).
AV by constituency is progressive because it allows for a system whereby the citizens of any constituency can elect an MP by 50% albeit by second choice preference. This is more progressive than a simple FPTP system. It's not nonsense because it retains close geographical representation and allows people to be represented more fairly.
Let's consider for a moment a simple left-right one dimensional political distribution. No single issue parties, just everyone spread out on a line.
In a FPTP system, there is one stable solution (basically a centre-right and a centre-left party (centred on whatever the current consensus centre is) fighing over the middle voters, and assuming they get everyone on "their" side, and an unstable solution (big centre party excluding both extremes, but this is vulnerable to attacks from the side)
In a compromise vote system, there's one stable solution (everyone compromises on the candidate in the political centre).
An actual representative system would end up with a parliament that looked something like its citizenry (some on the right, some on the left, some in the middle).
Well, how would you design one?
All lower houses here (save Tasmania) are elected on the preferential basis for single member constituencies. You rank the candidates in your order of preference. It gives independents and minority parties a chance to campaign and show what degree of support they have; it also gets the major parties looking at possible compromises they could make in adopting some of the policies of the minors.
Upper houses, and the Tasmanian lower house, are all elected on the Hare-Clarke* (proportional) basis of multi-member constituencies. This gives minor parties a real chance of getting a member elected.
*Or hare-brained if you like. The counting system is horrendous.
Moreover, I would postulate that if we'd introduced AV we would not have Brexit and quite possibly not had Windrush. With UKIP supporters able to vote Tory as their second choice, the shift of the Conservative party to ape UKIP policies would not make sense and probably wouldn't have worked.
Whilst I agree with you on the desirability of Brexit and the Windrush scandal, I don't think that "AV means parties don't have to bother trying to accommodate potential voter's preferences because they'll get them as second or third choice anyway" either makes a great argument, or supports MrMandid's contention that such a scheme would select a government with >50% support (unless we're defining "marginally less bad than the other lot" as support).
It's irrelevant what my contention is. Y'all can whinge and be all "it should be this or it should be that" and pontificate till the cows come home and try and score self congratulatory points and intellectually debate the points of how you are right with your viewpoint as much as you want, and if that is what floats yer boat and makes you feel good about yourself then crack on. I'll chip in "you are wonderfully right and thats great, have a cookie".
But onto the rub of the matter, a change in the electoral system was proposed in referendum. It was rejected.
End of.
If you are unhappy about this then form a political party and get votes, get elected, form govt and change things.
Comments
Fair enough, your choice. Do as you wish. If that extends to not complying to laws made by governments (on the grounds that the government is not "legitimate") then again, your choice, as long as that also extends to both other people choosing to do likewise AND (to avoid any hypocrisy) you do not avail yourself of any of the services (NHS, schools, roads, benefits etc etc) that is fine and dandy by me. Just don't expect any sympathy if a judge sees things differently.
You're mistaken when you assume I did not read all of your post.
Then why do you think he's not going to take part in wider society because he see Johnson as illegitimate? If you read all of his post, you certainly didn't manage to comprehend it.
Not a tie, but rather a failure of any candidate to get 50% plus 1 of the votes. In that event, there are different ways to continue. In preferential voting, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the second choices of the votes for that candidate are distributed. Then so on, until one candidate gets the magic number.
Proportional voting works in reverse, as it were. Surplus votes of the most successful candidate are distributed, but each only counts for a proportion of a full vote. That's a simple description, the actual system and the counting is far too complicated for me. If you want to look further, look at Hare-Clarke systems, or voting in the Australian Senate/Tasmanian lower house for full details.
Coz he said he didnt consider ANY government legitimate since about 1980 (bar the coalition), but note my reply said "if".
No UK Government (bar the coalition, if you count it) has had more than 50% of the vote since the war, if that's your metric. 1970 is the most recent time any governing party had more than 45% of the vote. I don't know what's special about 1980.
Labour's peak vote share (ever) was actually in the 1951 election, where Attlee won 48.8% of the vote, but lost to Churchill with 48.0%. The current government has the most support of any (non-coalition) government since Mrs Thatcher in 1979, and more support than any Labour government since Harold Wilson's 1966 snap election landslide.
If Enoch pays his taxes and national insurance he is entitled to many of those things.
Also you can disagree with something whilst at the same time having to live with it. I think zero hours contracts are nasty. They work only for a few people, but a lot people are on them. I have to put up with that being the way things are, I don’t have to like it. I am not on a zero hours contract just to be clear
Did he wear a face-mask?
Oh, no, he DIDN'T!
Just think of all the trauma those poor children have suffered, through gazing on WW's visage...
It reminds me of the threat to naughty children of the early 1800s - 'Behave, or BONEY will get you!'...
I was more questioning the term "legitimate" rather than disputing election results. Now, one may personally believe that any election that was won by receiving less than 50% of the overall vote is "illegitimate" however I would argue that this view was incorrect. In this sense my view is that what defines legitimate or illegitimate is defined by what is agreed by law, and it is agreed by law that a political party may form government by receiving less than 50% of the overall votes. Ergo ALL governments in the UK in recent times have been "legitimate".
I think there is more than meaning of "legitimate", or rather more than one set of "laws" by which one might assess legitimacy. This isn't a new or particularly controversial idea - what China is doing in Hong Kong is legitimate in the sense that it is done in accordance with Chinese law, but illegitimate in a moral sense and arguably in the sense of international treaties. By law Maduro is president of Venezuela, but legitimacy has been conferred on the leader of the opposition by foreign powers, including UK courts.
I think legitimacy requires a degree of collective recognition, it's not necessarily about morality. I can think that the Nazis were the legitimate government of Germany in the 1930s while still thinking their actions an illegitimate use of power. I don't think it's clear cut.
I agree that I don't think it's "clear cut" if we wish to delve deeper. However Enoch seemed to think IT WAS clear cut. Any government in the UK that received less than 50% of the overall vote was in his view "illegitimate".
Enoch can speak for himself, but I can see a good argument that a legitimate government in a democracy should have the support of at least 50% of the electorate. It is worthwhile to consider whether the sweeping changes UK governments can make are reasonable if they have the backing of less than half of voters.
Legitimate means "conforming to the law or to rules". These apply to the status of governments elected in the UK irrespective of what mental gymnastics people try to go through.
The problem with this argument is that it since the Conservative electoral victory in 1900, the only UK governments that have received more than 50% of the votes are the wartime coalitions, the National Government in the aftermath of the Great Depression (1931 and 1935 elections) and the Conservative / Lib Dem coalition in 2010.
Which makes sweeping changes such as the NHS, the modern welfare state, Thatcher's reforms & privatization, upgrading the EEC to the EU, and so on all illegitimate. Joining the EEC gets a pass, because that was confirmed by a referendum.
And that doesn't really match the public opinion, does it?
That is indeed one of the dictionary definitions. But, as I mentioned, which rules and whose laws? There is a good case to be made that democracy is the rule of the majority, and hence a government does not have democratic legitimacy without the support of a majority of the population. Now, I think you could also argue a degree of implied support, in that by participating in elections under the system we have you agree to accept the result and hence the legitimacy of the government elected thereby.
There are better places to discuss Brexit than this thread, and I speak for myself rather than Alan; but for me: I'll get over it when the NHS gets an extra £350m per week
As will become blindingly obvious to EVERYONE but the totally delusional by this time next year, virtually no one voted for what Brexit actually is.
Of course a thread on Johnson will always touch on Brexit coz it's so tied up with him personally. That he saw in Brexit a vehicle for advancing Boris. The fact that he has been successful in this doesn't change the fact that he is a total fuckwit. Nor does it change the vicious reality of a No Deal Brexit that will almost certainly hit us at the end of this year. And, ultimately, despite all the ridiculous nonsense spouting here and elsewhere, it doesn't change the fact that Brexit is a complete affront to democracy.
So on the day the now imfamous Russia report came out, it is worth noting this: The evidence from the committee is categorical that a full investigation into Russia's involvement in the Brexit referendum is absolutely indicated. But don't worry, our illustrious Prime Minister has already ruled it out.
Fuckwit.
Untill the rules are changed, a legitimate government is able to pass a budget and win votes of No Confidence.
The problem I think is that though the Conservatives legitimately won the election and Boris being prime mister is a consequence, the actions of Boris and his supporters seem morally dubious at times. As I said trying to prorogue Parliament, sacking those who disagreed with him, the blatant untrue facts touted during the referendum all point to a man who can not be trusted. That is not to do with his political leanings but his moral compass. A compass that seems to have broken
Yes, won using the FPTP system of voting and from what Alan Cresswell said on an earlier thread, a gerrymandered systems of constituencies.
My preference would certainly be for a different way of electing our representatives (indeed, our whole system of government - which in my ideal world would include significant devolution of powers to local level), but I also recognise that that would also have it's own set of problems. However, the 2019 election result was conducted within the system we have, and I don't consider any government elected within the system as legitimate ... even if I might call the system itself illegitimate. That doesn't, of course, mean that everything a government does once in power is legitimate - in particular, I have big issues with a government acting in a manner different from what they had said they'd act in their manifesto.
There is no Scottish island that has its own MP. There are two constituencies defined in statute as comprising only specific island groups, one comprising the Outer Hebrides, the other Orkney and Shetland. Other islands, including my own, are subsumed into mainland constituencies. The logic of the divide is not entirely clear, as we're a good bit further from the mainland than Orkney. I don't see the island constituencies as gerrymandering as they don't convey a particular advantage to one party. They're more akin to the sort of impulse that gives the US states equal representation in the senate - that the needs and interests of some places are sufficiently different that without separate representation they'll be completely drowned out.
Arethosemyfeet, my recollection of the earlier thread was that the reference was to one of the western islands, not the Orkneys or Hebrides. The message I took from Alan Cresswell's post was that it was wrong to expect an MP to travel a half hour on a ferry to see his island constituents, and unfair to those constituents to wait a few days to have their MP visit the island. The result was that the island was a constituency and had a much smaller number of electors than mainland electorates.
As I recall the question was about Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles) which is a single Westminster constituency covering several islands in the Outer Hebrides, with a significantly smaller electorate than the average. There have in the past been proposals to include the Inner Hebrides (Skye etc) or merge this constituency with Orkney and Shetland, to make constituencies that are closer to the average for Westminster. The objections that have been raised to these suggestions are based on cultural differences (the Inner Hebrides have a much more 'Mainland' feel to them, Shetland is economically distinct with a much more varied population due to the oil/gas industry, Orkney and Shetland retain their Scandinavian character far more, Gaidhlig is the first language in some islands etc), as well as the resulting geographical size of the resulting constituency (which would mean ferry rides well in excess of an hour to get between different parts of the constituency, assuming they're running). My argument was always along the lines of "natural communities" - to join islands with the mainland joins two groups of people with very different situations, to join different groups of islands with minimal (if any) direct communication isn't natural, etc.
I think this could only be claimed by someone really ignorant of the Inner Hebrides. If anything it's Lewis, with its big supermarkets, high street and so on that's more like the mainland. It's also a shorter ferry journey from the mainland to Lewis than it is to where I live. Skye, with its mainland bridge, can be argued to be closer to Ross than to the rest of the isles, but that's about it. The truth is, however, that the isles on the west coast vary considerably. I'm pretty certain, however, that my island has a lot more in common with Barra than it does with Helensburgh.
If I wanted a short break on Lewis I'd want to fly, but that's probably true for Islay as well. The inhabited islands in the Outer Hebrides are also much better connected. You can hop from Barra to the Uists to Benbecula, to Lewis-Harris and so on with relative ease. Getting from Colonsay to, well, anywhere is a pretty tricky endeavour.
Dude, there's an airport in Stornoway, with a flight from Glasgow that isn't even long enough to drink a cup of tea. Sure - if it's foggy, the plane won't land, and the airstrip sticks out in to the sea, so that happens.
And yet they all work. I read complaints about the situation in the less densely populated parts of Scotland with some sympathy, but with a certain sense that others have it far worse and manage to get on with it without complaining about geography. [/tangent]
There are problems that are actually worth solving (Welsh constituencies are all undersized, for example - Wales needs to give up about 8 MPs), but there are also advantages to having constituency boundaries follow natural divisions.
Aside from a debate about the definition of "legitimate" the argument of 50% assumes that all those who didn't vote for the Party that gained the highest number of votes (but not enough to pass 50%) were voting AGAINST that party. They may not have been.
So, this can be resolved by each constituency adopting AV.
Being:
Under the alternative vote system proposed in the referendum, voters would still be electing just one candidate associated with one geographic constituency. Instead of simply voting for one candidate on the ballot paper (with an 'X'), the voter would instead be asked to rank one or more of the candidates in order of preference. If after first preferences have been counted, no one candidate has a majority of the votes cast, then the bottom candidate will be eliminated and votes for that candidate are transferred to each voter's next available preference. The process continues repeatedly until one candidate reaches a majority and wins. The system proposed was a form of "optional preferential voting", in that voters would not be obliged to rank every candidate in order of preference in order to cast a valid vote.
This would then ensure that each MP was elected by 50%.
However, this proposal was rejected (heavily) in the 2011 referendum.
AV is one solution, but it only really provides for each candidate having the support of 50% of voters in their constituency, it doesn't mitigate against disproportionately large parliamentary majorities. The d'Hondt system used in Scotland is another method. It's not perfect, but it does go some way to prevent the "elective dictatorship" that usually happens at Westminster and the chaos that happens when it doesn't. The problem with AV is that it tends to silence minority voices spread over a wide area even more effectively than FPTP, and it can produce some very strange and polarising results.
Instant Runoff / Single Transferable Vote is a sub-par way of selecting a compromise winner for a single-winner election. If you want a method to select a compromise candidate from each constituency, there are better methods.
More important, I think, is the idea of a per-constituency compromise candidate itself. This is poorly matched to the current British political structure. If what you want is a government / parliament that is actually representative of the people, you want some form of proportional representation (which IRV / STV / AV is not). The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly approach this with their system of extra regional members on the party list. This achieves reasonable proportionality, at the cost of making it more difficult for voters to eliminate a specific politician, because they can always get in on the list.
So, elect a govt that suggests such. A more progressive approach was offered and utterly rejected. Saying "I think this would be better" is all well and good but utterly meaningless unless you find sufficient support and then get into power those who are suggesting it. Complain as much as you like but you are whistling in the wind.
IRV / AV is not "a more progressive approach". There's nothing "progressive" about it. I might well support a proportional system, but I wouldn't support AV, because I don't see it as being an improvement on FPTP.
I'm not complaining, and I don't see how you can read what I wrote as "complaining". I am, however, pointing out that your argument (that AV would solve the 50% representation "issue") is nonsense.
AV by constituency is progressive because it allows for a system whereby the citizens of any constituency can elect an MP by 50% albeit by second choice preference. This is more progressive than a simple FPTP system. It's not nonsense because it retains close geographical representation and allows people to be represented more fairly.
For example, there is a significant number of people who would like to vote Green but never do because they feel they must vote Labour. We would very quickly learn the true level of support for each party.
Moreover, I would postulate that if we'd introduced AV we would not have Brexit and quite possibly not had Windrush. With UKIP supporters able to vote Tory as their second choice, the shift of the Conservative party to ape UKIP policies would not make sense and probably wouldn't have worked.
Just my thoughts...
AFZ
At the seat level, yes, but in terms of overall parliamentary representation it's actually worse. Take a look at this:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/the-2015-general-election-report/#sub-section-15
EDIT: similar for 2019:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/the-2019-general-election-voters-left-voiceless/#sub-section-37
AMS gives a much better reflection of the views across the country.
Let's consider for a moment a simple left-right one dimensional political distribution. No single issue parties, just everyone spread out on a line.
In a FPTP system, there is one stable solution (basically a centre-right and a centre-left party (centred on whatever the current consensus centre is) fighing over the middle voters, and assuming they get everyone on "their" side, and an unstable solution (big centre party excluding both extremes, but this is vulnerable to attacks from the side)
In a compromise vote system, there's one stable solution (everyone compromises on the candidate in the political centre).
An actual representative system would end up with a parliament that looked something like its citizenry (some on the right, some on the left, some in the middle).
Whilst I agree with you on the desirability of Brexit and the Windrush scandal, I don't think that "AV means parties don't have to bother trying to accommodate potential voter's preferences because they'll get them as second or third choice anyway" either makes a great argument, or supports MrMandid's contention that such a scheme would select a government with >50% support (unless we're defining "marginally less bad than the other lot" as support).
Well, how would you design one?
All lower houses here (save Tasmania) are elected on the preferential basis for single member constituencies. You rank the candidates in your order of preference. It gives independents and minority parties a chance to campaign and show what degree of support they have; it also gets the major parties looking at possible compromises they could make in adopting some of the policies of the minors.
Upper houses, and the Tasmanian lower house, are all elected on the Hare-Clarke* (proportional) basis of multi-member constituencies. This gives minor parties a real chance of getting a member elected.
*Or hare-brained if you like. The counting system is horrendous.
It's irrelevant what my contention is. Y'all can whinge and be all "it should be this or it should be that" and pontificate till the cows come home and try and score self congratulatory points and intellectually debate the points of how you are right with your viewpoint as much as you want, and if that is what floats yer boat and makes you feel good about yourself then crack on. I'll chip in "you are wonderfully right and thats great, have a cookie".
But onto the rub of the matter, a change in the electoral system was proposed in referendum. It was rejected.
End of.
If you are unhappy about this then form a political party and get votes, get elected, form govt and change things.