28 ms·

I'm not exactly sure how UK government / prime minister elections work, but I'd expect that this government was elected on the exact same basis as previous gove

by tomp 7y ago

I'm not exactly sure how UK government / prime minister elections work, but I'd expect that this government was elected on the exact same basis as previous governments. PM wants an election as well, which he's likely to win (well, according to polls... which are likely wrong!) More importantly, the government isn't non-democratic by any definition.

growse 7y ago
At the last GE, the government wasn't elected with a majority. The people specifically voted to not give the government unfettered power to do whatever they like. Specifically, Boris was elected prime minister by a very small number of people, and no-one voted for the cabinet. > PM wants an election as well, which he's likely to win (well, according to polls... which are likely wrong!) It's kind of irrelevant what the PM wants - general elections are held in accordance to the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 (which was passed when the tories were in government). If he wants an election, it has to be with the consent of Parliament (ie the people).
- lambertsimnel 7y ago
  The lack of proportional representation means that the consent of Parliament is rather different from the consent of the people. Not since 1931 has a UK party received a majority of votes cast. A quirk of the voting system has usually given a parliamentary majority to one party. Voters didn't specifically vote for a minority government in 2017. In fact, a greater proportion of them voted for the Conservative party than in the previous election, at which it "won" a majority.
  - growse 7y ago
    I'm a PR cheerleader as much as the next guy, but our FPTP system isn't exactly an obscure secret. You might not like the outcome that it gives you, but it's by definition what the voters voted for.
    - lambertsimnel 7y ago
      I take a different view of whether the results of elections are "by definition what the voters voted for". FPTP tends to produce results at odds with popular support. It has produced majorities in Parliament for parties that received a mere plurality of the votes. It has produced at least one Parliament in which a party without even a plurality of votes received a parliamentary majority. FPTP can even deny a parliamentary majority to a party with a majority of votes. This is essentially what happened in the last pre-Apartheid election in South Africa, at which most voters voted for the anti-Apartheid coalition. I'd even go as far as to partly disagree with your judgement that FPTP isn't a secret. Clearly many do know that the House of Commons is elected by FPTP, but even most political correspondents seem unaware of its far-reaching consequences. Among ordinary voters, many are unaware of FPTP. I've met UK voters who don't accept the UK doesn't already have PR for general elections. (I've also met teachers who tell me their politics students believe we have PR until taught otherwise. I think it's a natural assumption that it necessarily takes more votes to win an election than to lose.)
      - vidarh 7y ago
        I'd have to agree with you that I think a lot of voters don't understand FPTP. I keep having arguments with UK voters that think that it takes a majority in a constituency to win a seat, for example. Many refuse to believe this isn't the case even when I give examples showing it takes just a plurality in each seat, because it just seems wrong to a lot of people, even when asking them how else you'd pick the winner in a single-seat constituency without any form of ranked voting. FPTP just seems to seem totally counter-intuitive to people when you make them actually work through the implications. As an immigrant, it's incredibly frustrating to come across "natives" that knows less about their own electoral system than I do.
pjc50 7y ago
> I'm not exactly sure how UK government / prime minister elections work, but I'd expect that this government was elected on the exact same basis as previous governments Well, you're wrong, so why don't you go and do the basic reading first?
lambertsimnel 7y ago
There is a definition of "democracy" by which the government (and indeed Parliament) is non-democratic. Admittedly, it's a narrow definition, but nevertheless it's one that most developed countries satisfy. That definition is one suggested by Ernest Neville: "In a democratic government the right of decision belongs to the majority, but the right of representation belongs to all." The lack of proportional representation deprives UK voters of both majority rule and adequate minority representation. The consequences are usually subtle, but the February 1974 general election gave the most seats to a party without the most votes. The 1951 election gave a majority of seats to a party without the most votes.

by tomp 7y ago

growse 7y ago

At the last GE, the government wasn't elected with a majority. The people specifically voted to not give the government unfettered power to do whatever they like. Specifically, Boris was elected prime minister by a very small number of people, and no-one voted for the cabinet. > PM wants an election as well, which he's likely to win (well, according to polls... which are likely wrong!) It's kind of irrelevant what the PM wants - general elections are held in accordance to the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 (which was passed when the tories were in government). If he wants an election, it has to be with the consent of Parliament (ie the people).

lambertsimnel 7y ago
The lack of proportional representation means that the consent of Parliament is rather different from the consent of the people. Not since 1931 has a UK party received a majority of votes cast. A quirk of the voting system has usually given a parliamentary majority to one party. Voters didn't specifically vote for a minority government in 2017. In fact, a greater proportion of them voted for the Conservative party than in the previous election, at which it "won" a majority.
- growse 7y ago
  I'm a PR cheerleader as much as the next guy, but our FPTP system isn't exactly an obscure secret. You might not like the outcome that it gives you, but it's by definition what the voters voted for.
  - lambertsimnel 7y ago
    I take a different view of whether the results of elections are "by definition what the voters voted for". FPTP tends to produce results at odds with popular support. It has produced majorities in Parliament for parties that received a mere plurality of the votes. It has produced at least one Parliament in which a party without even a plurality of votes received a parliamentary majority. FPTP can even deny a parliamentary majority to a party with a majority of votes. This is essentially what happened in the last pre-Apartheid election in South Africa, at which most voters voted for the anti-Apartheid coalition. I'd even go as far as to partly disagree with your judgement that FPTP isn't a secret. Clearly many do know that the House of Commons is elected by FPTP, but even most political correspondents seem unaware of its far-reaching consequences. Among ordinary voters, many are unaware of FPTP. I've met UK voters who don't accept the UK doesn't already have PR for general elections. (I've also met teachers who tell me their politics students believe we have PR until taught otherwise. I think it's a natural assumption that it necessarily takes more votes to win an election than to lose.)
    - vidarh 7y ago
      I'd have to agree with you that I think a lot of voters don't understand FPTP. I keep having arguments with UK voters that think that it takes a majority in a constituency to win a seat, for example. Many refuse to believe this isn't the case even when I give examples showing it takes just a plurality in each seat, because it just seems wrong to a lot of people, even when asking them how else you'd pick the winner in a single-seat constituency without any form of ranked voting. FPTP just seems to seem totally counter-intuitive to people when you make them actually work through the implications. As an immigrant, it's incredibly frustrating to come across "natives" that knows less about their own electoral system than I do.

pjc50 7y ago

> I'm not exactly sure how UK government / prime minister elections work, but I'd expect that this government was elected on the exact same basis as previous governments Well, you're wrong, so why don't you go and do the basic reading first?

lambertsimnel 7y ago

There is a definition of "democracy" by which the government (and indeed Parliament) is non-democratic. Admittedly, it's a narrow definition, but nevertheless it's one that most developed countries satisfy. That definition is one suggested by Ernest Neville: "In a democratic government the right of decision belongs to the majority, but the right of representation belongs to all." The lack of proportional representation deprives UK voters of both majority rule and adequate minority representation. The consequences are usually subtle, but the February 1974 general election gave the most seats to a party without the most votes. The 1951 election gave a majority of seats to a party without the most votes.