There is much in the media about a poll published today that showed a substantial lead for the No to AV campaign. That is great news, the Yes campaign has failed to put a decent message across in my opinion - and for good reason, I am not sure there is a message that is strong enough to counter the arguments in favour of a No vote. Our system of electing MPs is not broken, there is no need to change it and no need to complicate it.However, it is important to warn against complacency and ensure there is a good turn out. I know the Lib Dems, and I know that however decisive the No vote on Thursday, they will not accept a democratic mandate and will do anything to repeat the referendum until they get there way. The No vote on Thursday needs to win, it needs to win decisively and with as high a turnout as possible. That is the only way the Lib Dems will be without an excuse for electoral reform for a generation (but I suspect even that won't stop them).
Yes, maybe the only argument against the 'No' vote is historical fact. For instance, in 1997 Labour won the general election with an absolute majority, although 56.8% of the population voted against them. The same happened in 2001 when Labour again won with 59.3% voting against them. In 2005 the same happened yet again with Labour again winning an overall majority, despite the fact 64.8% voted against them. In 2010 I'm sure everyone knows that 63.9% of the population voted against the Conservatives, and again, they formed the government. Hardly democratic is it?
ReplyDeleteBut National Governments are made because at a Constituency by constituency basis more people choose one political party than another - it has absolutely nothing to do with what the percentage vote was Nationally.
ReplyDeleteSo you are not arguing the point that the current system isn’t democratic then, just that you think we should keep the status quo, even if the majority of the people vote against the party that usually gets absolute control over the country. Doesn’t sound like you believe in democracy, and as such, I am surprised that you stand in local politics for a party that portrays itself as democratic. The current system stinks and belongs to the 19th century; it simply doesn’t belong in the modern world.
ReplyDeleteOur system is entirely democratric - everyone is entitled to vote and vote for the candidate they think is best suited to represent them in Parliament, any suggestion that it is not democratic is ludicrous. It is a system that, largely, brings decisive results - and everyone only gets one vote.
ReplyDeleteYou may want to argue there are better systems, fine, I would beg to differ - but to suggest our current system is not a legitimate form of democracy is daft.
So you think that a system that gives a 166 majority to a party that 59.3% of the people voted against in 2001, or a 179 majority for a party that had 56.8% of the electorate vote against in 1997 is democratic? The first past the post system is only democratic in a two party system, any more, and then it’s not, and it’s daft to think otherwise. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
ReplyDeleteOK, I’ve got this. You believe that if a party has 59.3% of the votes go against them as happened in 2001, you think it’s democratic that they should end up with a 166 totally decisive majority enabling them to do more or less whatever they want. The same happened in 1997 when 56.8% voted against the party who ended up with a 179 decisive majority. Yes I guess it must be ludicrous to think it’s anything but democratic, in a third world dictatorship of course. Anybody with any sense realises that a first past the post system only works when there are two choices. Unfortunately we have moved on from the Liberals and the Whigs, and now have a multi-party system, so the old system now does not work. I think you should read Jeremiah 5.21.
ReplyDeleteYou are telling me an old system doesn't work and then telling me I need to learn from a 2000 year old document. Argument lost.
ReplyDelete