2005 election

To be honest I'm in favour of FPTP. Rather that than having to change the government every couple of years like in Italy.

And I think Germany's pretty stable too, although that's a mixed system.

Quote: Freshly_Squeezed_Cynic_

And I think Germany's pretty stable too, although that's a mixed system.

Unfortunately their government is so consensus based that its really difficult to change/do anything. Kind of the opposite of Blair really.

You can't blame all the problems of the Weimar Republic and it's subsequent destruction on proportional representation, or the view that it was a failure on that and that alone. All that PR ever did was possibly create an opposition to the Nazis which was fragmented, although you could also claim that that was as much because of different personalities and events rather than the weakness of PR itself. Undoubtedly the Great Depression played a massive part in the lack of confidence in the Weimar Republic, with the ensuing hyperinflation and destruction of the economy, and you must admit the Great Depression was not the Weimar Republic's fault. There was the problems of the German public's view of the Versailles treaty, and how a government that sprung from that treaty, really, could never be viewed in a good light. It's also interesting to note that Germany only payed a fraction of the reparations it was due to pay to the Allies of WWI, because of the work of Gustav Stresseman after the first collapse of the German economy. Not exactly "doing nothing". There was also the authoritarian powers of the German President as well, which Hitler managed to assume power by in such supposedly legitimate fashion. Damn right it isn't the best example.

I also challenge your assertion that somehow the FPTP system is fair because we can "make a change". That's not a result of fairness, that's a result of the legislative system which may or may not be fair. You could argue from that that dictatorship is fair because things would get done and we (or at least, the dictator) could "make a change". They would, but that's no reason to call it a fair system. People are talking about stability inherent in FPTP, but it's not stability of democracy - it's stability of the legislative system, which is an entirely different thing. How is it fair that one person's vote counts far, far more than another's? I think that undermines the system of democracy - where everyone has an equal say in the choosing of the government.

I agree with the point about the Weimar Republic. You must remember that while thw Nazis never held an outright majority, the next biggest party were the Communists. Essentially German politics had become polarised to he extent to which the two biggest parties were the Nazis (who wanted to destroy democracy) and the Communists (who also wanted to destroy democracy). Essentially the German establishment felt more secure with Hitler as he didn't have policies geared towards widespread property expropriation, hence he became Chancellor.

The extent to which the great depression was responsible for this is indicated by how both the Nazi and Communist votes balooned in its wake.

Quote: komondor_

I agree with the point about the Weimar Republic. You must remember that while thw Nazis never held an outright majority, the next biggest party were the Communists. Essentially German politics had become polarised to he extent to which the two biggest parties were the Nazis (who wanted to destroy democracy) and the Communists (who also wanted to destroy democracy). Essentially the German establishment felt more secure with Hitler as he didn't have policies geared towards widespread property expropriation, hence he became Chancellor.

The extent to which the great depression was responsible for this is indicated by how both the Nazi and Communist votes balooned in its wake.

Erm, the Communists were never the second biggest party. Even when their vote was at it's peak, they were still essentially a small minority in the Reichstag. The next biggest party to the NSDAP was the SPD who were supporters of the Republic. Also, you cannot argue that other events outside the fact that proportional representation was used in the Reichstag didn't contribute to the fact that the KPD was focussed more on destroying the Republic than destroying the Nazis. The events of the Spartacist Revolt and its subsequent crushing by the Freikorps meant that the KPD was more focussed on revenge to the Republic for destroying so bloodily its nascent revolt. This focus on the Republic rather than the Nazis lead to a fragmentation of possible opposition to Hitler that you can't blame on PR.

You're also wrong about the circumstances in which Hitler became Chancellor. You're right the establishment would prefer Hitler to Thalmann and the Communists, although I would add that that establishment in the first place had been left over from the old German Reich, thus making it rather authoritarian and suspicious of the Republic in itself - which didn't exactly bode well for the Republic. However, Hitler became Chancellor not because he had the support of the right-wing establishment, but because the other right-wing parties such as the DNVP said they could control him. It was to form an overall right-wing coalition that he was originally appointed Chancellor. That failed, of course, but that's a different matter altogether. And again, you can't blame these happenings on PR.

Also, with the whole question of only 60% of the country voting, you could argue that not voting is essentially an abstain, which is a perfectly legitimate part of the political process.

Quote: Freshly_Squeezed_Cynic_

Erm, the Communists were never the second biggest party. Even when their vote was at it's peak, they were still essentially a small minority in the Reichstag. The next biggest party to the NSDAP was the SPD who were supporters of the Republic. Also, you cannot argue that other events outside the fact that proportional representation was used in the Reichstag didn't contribute to the fact that the KPD was focussed more on destroying the Republic than destroying the Nazis. The events of the Spartacist Revolt and its subsequent crushing by the Freikorps meant that the KPD was more focussed on revenge to the Republic for destroying so bloodily its nascent revolt. This focus on the Republic rather than the Nazis lead to a fragmentation of possible opposition to Hitler that you can't blame on PR.

You're also wrong about the circumstances in which Hitler became Chancellor. You're right the establishment would prefer Hitler to Thalmann and the Communists, although I would add that that establishment in the first place had been left over from the old German Reich, thus making it rather authoritarian and suspicious of the Republic in itself - which didn't exactly bode well for the Republic. However, Hitler became Chancellor not because he had the support of the right-wing establishment, but because the other right-wing parties such as the DNVP said they could control him. It was to form an overall right-wing coalition that he was originally appointed Chancellor. That failed, of course, but that's a different matter altogether. And again, you can't blame these happenings on PR.

Also, with the whole question of only 60% of the country voting, you could argue that not voting is essentially an abstain, which is a perfectly legitimate part of the political process.

Elections of March 1933

Quote:

The elections of March 1933 gave the following results: National Socialists 43.9%, Nationalists 8%, Centre Party 11.7%, Social Democrats 18.3%, Communists 12.3%, all others 5.8% of the votes. They received their seats in proportion to their votes: National Socialists 288, Nationalists 52, Centre 74, Social Democrats 120, Communists 81, others 32.

Yeah you're right. They were the 3rd biggest. I SHOULD have said that by 1933 over half the Reichstag seats were occupied by parties openly hostile to democracy. I was just making Kershaw's point that politics in Germany became increasingly polarised after the Depression. All your points are relevant, I agree that Hitlers rise wasen't due to the PR system. However fear of another Spartacist revolt certainly did make the the main parties more amenable to cutting a deal with Hitler.

Quote: Citizen_Twiggy_

I said Weimar Germany was a bad example but it was the only thing i could think of at the time as an example.You should be glad I didnt compare it to shoes.
One of the main reasons I oppose PR is that it means coalitions would have to be made amongst different parties. I would be very uncomfortable with the party I support trying to get the BNP's support on a new law. And yes, BNP's votes on a new law if we were to have PR would not amount to much but either way its a situation I would never want to happen. Also, I feel that different parties have different views and opinions for a reason, because they truly believe in their cause and what they want to do. If we were to have PR the majority party would have to let go of some of these principles in order to 'get things done'. I would rather a party maintained its principles.
Our views have been heard, people who voted in the election and contributed to the huge decrease in the Labour majority showed Labour that changes needed to be made to the Labour government. You don't think that is fair nor that the government will now have to listen to the people and to the other parties in parliament now? They will and thats fair. I guess I'm just naive and innocent but I still believe that the government will work for the people. Hell, I still believe that Gordon Brown will end poverty.

FPTP works and its effective. When we do polls on VR, the person with the most votes wins even if 8 people voted for different people. Its just how a win/lose system works and thats fair. Yes, I realise that there is a massive difference between a VR poll or the formation of a new government but thats just how it work and how we can determine a winner and a loser.

This is all assuming that a party would actually form a coaltion with the BNP of course. It's extremly unlikely that any of the big three parties would do such a thing. More realistically, it would be a Labour-Lib coaliton or something with the Greens or SNP.

Coaltion governments are not necessary bad, and do allow for more bargaining. It would certainly force the governing parties to co-operate more, and prevent as much shoddy legislation being forced through. Quality legislation is much more important than the quantity of it.

I do agree that coaliton governments do cause some parties to lose some of their principles though. Just look at the German Greens who have accepted

that made me do enourmous laughs too

Quote: Big_Bob_Flapper_

FPTP wouldn't be so bad if it had the same kind of scrutiny and opposition the Senate has in the United States. PR is a dodgy issue really, a Labour/Lib-Dem coalition as government for the UK? I doubt it's feasibility to be honest.

I'm not sure what you mean about the Senate's scrutiny and opposition - it'd be good if you could elaborate. Before you doubt a Labour/Lib Dem coalition as being able to combine into a government, however, remember that there already is one in Scotland.

Denesha -

Well, if you can't find a good example, doesn't that tell you something?

Perhaps I'm looking at this from a different way, but I don't want people or parties to be able to railroad through legislation with huge majorities, as you can get under FPTP. I want those fundamental checks and balances that make democracy what it is. With a huge majority like you can get under FPTP, especially in the 80's under Thatcher and until recently with Blair, all sorts of legislation can get railroaded through, and the dominant party means that opposition is almost useless, too weak to put up an effective check to the government. It is not, and never will be, the government that is the major facet of democracy. It is the ability to check, to criticise, to call into question, to have these criticisms make an effect, that is the main benefit of a democracy. And when you have a dominant government and a weak opposition, those checks and balances are never weaker, and neither is democracy.

Our views have not been heard to the extent that they should have, and some people's views count for less than other people's views, and many people's views do not count at all, and that in my view is entirely unfair. And anyway, I don't think Labour (or at least New Labour) sees itself as needing to change. It's still won. It still has a highly respectable majority - people are forgetting that a majority of 66 isn't so terrible, and it's quite easy to work with, and it can still be feasible to railroad through a lot of legislation that Blair wants to get through - he should be able to get ID cards, especially. One could argue (and I've seen a lot of people who have been) that most people who went away from Labour only went away from Labour because of the Iraq War - I sincerly doubt the Iraq War is going to happen again. Those kinds of things fade eventually, and then what's the main reason for Labour to "listen to the people"? Sod all, that's what.

As for the idea of principles, even in a FPTP system, sometimes you have to modify or compromise your principles. Maybe it's not currently feasible. Maybe it's not financially possible. And I'm not even talking about the problem of Duverger's Law, which is that a FPTP system will always, without fail, eventually lead to two parties fighting over the centre ground to capture power, even if they have to shed principles over the way to get it. Look at the whole New Labour project. Are you seriously telling me the Labour executive hasn't significantly changed its principles over the past 15 years or so? The point is, PR does allow for more debate, more checks and balances, and I think that is far more important than letting the "winner" rule over everything and railroad through legislation. That's a far cry from true democracy. That's a sham.

Quote: Luco_El_Loco_

but then shat on them, AND the unions, as soon as they assumed power.

And how many unions have disaffiliated from Labour? Two, at the last count, I believe. And as for the Lib Dems, well, we saw what happened as soon as Labour offered them a coalition up here.

Oh, but you have the lovely Alex whats his name of the SNP up there.

You're forgetting that under the current system we dont directly elect a government. We don't even directly elect a party, you elect an individual to represent the constituency in Parliament. PR would completely abolish this link. The ideal solution, as has been touched upon, would be to have the House Of Lords reformed as a Senate-style house with a national list PR system.

[quote=Pablo_the_ShiftyEyed_Dog_ link=1112914426/180#183 date=1115736264]You're forgetting that under the current system we dont directly elect a government.

Yes, Ireland does operate PR/STV, not party list. I think PR/STV is really the best system especially for Ireland. If FPTP was introduced (as Fianna Fail attempted to through referenda in the 60s) Fianna Fail would have completely dominated Irish politics, not healthy for Irish democracy IMO.

I really lke the idea of a US style Bill of Rights protecting Free Speech etc.

My names's Paul BTW.