|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 22, 2023 1:44:12 GMT
I do agree that the American system kinda works for it, but it is kinda funny that the land of the free features a device deliberately implemented to make it less democratic. Just amusing, not really a criticism.
First past the post basically encourages movement towards a two party system (because vote splitting), which I despise the idea of, and incentivizes against cooperation between parties, which I would prefer to happen more often. I would quite happily take some backroom dealing if it gets more compromise. I'd rather take a wider range of opinions and thoughts at the expense of a few more elections and some backroom dealing.
|
|
|
Post by TempestFennac on Oct 22, 2023 3:34:42 GMT
That's why I'm not a big fan of proportional representation, Hark (you ultimately don't know what you're voting for because of the need for coalitions to be formed). TPtP can be a joke for the reasons Can mentioned too admittedly; one set-up I'd like to try is a system where, if a candidate fails to get at least 50% of the vote, there's another election in that constituency between them and whoever came second place the following week (I figure that would allow people to have an idea of what the final government would end up looking like while avoiding situations like in the Northern Irish constituency in '15 where the winning candidate didn't even get 28% of the vote).
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 22, 2023 5:15:04 GMT
Could do that with a ranked system in a way that avoids having to hold another election. Kinda.
If you rank your choices on the ballot, then it shows who your vote goes to if your top choices don't get in. That means when a runoff is done, your top choices get eliminated until they get to your choice between the top two choices. If you simply don't want to in any way support certain parties, just leave them off your ranking so that you won't ever count as voting for them.
So like: I rank my vote like so (hypothetically, and not actually how I vote):
1) Communists 2) Socialists 3) Lib Scum 4) Con Bastards 5) Fucking Nazis 6) (Blank because you'll never support the Hippy Party)
Now you could do it in a runoff style like normal. So if the results of the first one were:
1) Fucking Nazis 2) Con Bastards 3) Commies 4) Socialists 5) Hippies 6) Lib Scum.
Then you could eliminate the "Lib Scum" for the ballot and rerank everything. Rinse and repeat until there are two left. So lets say the Lib Scum secondary votes go to the Socialists mostly, which bumps them up before the Communists. Hippies get dropped. Their votes mostly also go to the Socialists (Not the Commies, because, Man, like, I went once, and like, man, they called it a party, but man, buncha squares man, lots of talking about marks and angles, man, if I wanted to do that, I'd have stayed in school. Man.) Then the Communists get dropped, and they bump the Socialists up to the top. Then the Con Bastards get dropped, and their votes split somewhat, or some voters didn't include the Fucking Nazis on their ballot at all, and it isn't enough to elect the Nazis, so the Socialists get the seat.
OR
Technically, you could just take the top two from the first set of results and do that. No reason to necessarily, but you could. So eliminating everyone but the Fucking Nazis and the Con Bastards. Chances are all the Commie, Socialists, Hippy, and Lib Scum votes will go to the Con Bastards because they don't want Nazis. So the results would be Con Bastards winning that seat over the Fucking Nazis. I think that's basically what you suggested, and so I don't see the need to have a whole second election: just implement ranked voting with different parameters from the norm and make it only trigger if one Candidate doesn't get 50% on the first go.
Personally I prefer version 1. It lets me grudgingly support Con Bastards just in the off chance the Fucking Nazis would otherwise win, but in no other situation.
|
|
|
Post by TempestFennac on Oct 22, 2023 5:26:12 GMT
I think 1 is basically what the Lib Dems wanted when we had a referendum during the Con-Dem years (I prefer the idea of having a 2nd vote because who I'd vote for may depend on the wider political situation). While I think about it, I came up with something for a world-building project a while back which features an EU-like country and I decided to include something in the political system to try to avoid deadlocks:
Proportional representation used, leader of the party with the most votes becomes Chancellor, who is responsible for setting laws before Parliament and proposing the budget. To avoid situations where nothing gets done, if laws the Chancellor proposes are voted down, the parties who voted against it are expected to present an alternative within 1 week. If this fails to win when voted on the initially suggested law is passed. Elections happen every 5 years. Minimum voting age is 18.
I'm not sure whether it gives the Chancellor too much power; it could be set up so whichever proposal gets the most votes gets adopted but that seems like it could lead to instability.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 22, 2023 5:42:44 GMT
Ah, I see. Like if your district was suddenly a swing for one of the two parties. Seems a niche case, but it makes some sense. I do think having a list should usually address that concern, but okay.
I don't like long periods of time without an election, and 5 years is a bit much for me, especially when the leader of the Executive Branch is by default also the leader of the Legislative Branch... because I don't trust majority governments. But that said, with a minority government that system of yours could be interesting. With a majority, though, it'd have the same problem as having all that power concentrated in the leader of two branches. But proportional representation does make that much less likely... okay. If they can manage a majority in a proportional representation system, maybe they just deserve it. That's an interesting idea.
|
|
|
Post by TempestFennac on Oct 22, 2023 5:46:29 GMT
Thanks. I was thinking PR would mean the odds of any one party getting a majority alone would be slim (the SNP did manage it in Scotland's Parliament a couple of times but they're currently in a coalition with the Greens). You think 4 years is better for elections?
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 22, 2023 7:01:35 GMT
Yeah, you're right that PR would make majorities unlikely, and so the system maybe a bit more nuanced.
And yes, I think that the USA does one thing right, at least, and 4 years seems a fair term. But that's me. It also depends on how the whole system plays out, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 22, 2023 17:20:43 GMT
(Why....why are the communists and socialists the only ones that don't get an insulting titles? Could we just call them "party A" and "party B" etc? I'm not really comfortable with a scale where I have to be a socialist or a communist to avoid being the bad guy.)
The problem with the system you describe is it means I could end up voting for someone I hate.
If I hate two options and rank them 5 and 6 on my ballot, and those become the two that are fighting over victory in the final tally and it is very close, I can end up having supported my option 5 and helped make them win, even though my original ballot was written to send the message that I despise 5 and 6. I wont know till election night which party my vote ACTUALLY helped to win (I will know I didnt' help 6 but beyond that I can't be 100% certain who I am helping. I really don't want a situation where I have to pick which I am more likely to accidentally help out of the Communists and the Nazis.)
Also it makes a ballots a lot more complicated, giving people a lot of extra stuff to think about that they might not care about but then becomes strangely important. In the above example, the bottom 2 parties I wrote in I didnt' care much about the exact order because I hate them both, but that was actually the part that mattered since my 1 and 2 choices were eliminated early.
Again, this feels like it is leading in a weird, unintended direction, which would lead to parties winning that the overwhelming majority dislike. Like a party winning that got the less 1 votes, but did really well at 2 and 3 votes could become the ruling party. So we end up with the winner being a party few really love but most people don't massively dislike, which seems really strange. We could end up with a system where politicians are not aiming to inspire, but aiming to not be controversial and try to make most people not feel too strongly about them. If I make you feel strongly I COULD get a 1, but I could also annoy you and get a 6. If you don't feel too strongly about me I am likely to get a nice 2 or 3, so my average score is actually higher by making you have no strong feelings about me and my party.
It has all these odd implications that make saying "we won the election" confusing because it really isn't clear what you mean by that under that scoring system where votes can get converted into different votes depending on the out come.
In the UK a bit okay there was a hung parliament where the conservatives had to make a partnership with the lib dems to make a government. This is unlikely in a UK general election, but in this case the conservatives still had the biggest share of parliament, so it was them joining with another, so it still seemed representative in that the one with the most was still central to the new government. If it had been a labour (the second place party) and lib dems (the third) then it would have felt like some dirty business, as its two parties that didn't get the most some how teaming up to claim they are the most popular. Like an alliance of unpopular parties deciding they can add their votes together after the fact.
I guess I want leaders where I feel like the votes gave them some clear legitimacy. Like they got the most of what the election is measuring. I dont want to have an election then some guys go in a back room, crunch the numbers, move things around and we get a winner.
France has an interesting system, where lot of parties run in the first round and then they have a second round where the two top parties are the only ones on the ballot. This has a similar vibe to the above scoring system but I think it simplifies it so I know exactly what my vote is doing in each round.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 22, 2023 17:24:57 GMT
I think people should vote out their governments regularly. 4 or 5 years is enough. In the second term things always start to go off the rails and even longer than that the rot sets in really badly. Compare how people felt when Obama got re-elected compared to the end of his second term.
In the UK the conservatives have been in power forever, and basically almost always win elections. Now I get the reasons for this, the opposition parties are hopeless, but the failure to shake things up leads to complacent, useless leaders. Tory in fighting determines prime ministers more than elections do in the UK. Harsh but true.
Though I think things have gone on so long and got so bad people are going to go for labour out of desperation. Labour are working hard to make themselves look unelectable at every opportunity, but despite their best efforts I think they might be forced to actually take power.
UK politics are a lot of fun. I mean not in you live in the UK, obviously, everything is fucked. But fun in a cosmic laughter of the uncaring gods kind of way.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 23, 2023 1:23:32 GMT
Because Socialists and Communists are the only two parties who are objectively correct and closest to god. Jesus loves them the most. It's in the bible: "The party known as Communist and Socialist, shall forthwith be closest to my heart, and inherit the kingdom of God. Voteth for them, and thine soul shall be saved even from the stains most foul (like reading Furry stories). Down with the Capitalists!" -Marx 2:37. I'd not take it too seriously; after all, I ranked the Nazis above the Hippies. Not giving them a funny name was amusing to me because they're the ones who never win, and its written from that kind of perspective. My last election, I didn't vote for any party close to either the Communists or Hippies, but rather the Lib Scum, if that makes anyone feel better. The NDP are sorta Socialists, I suppose, and I have voted for them at some points, but not federally recently.
I will push back a bit, though. It's explicit that you can leave options blank. If you write nothing down after finishing with the parties you do like, you deny your vote to any parties you didn't write down (or don't like at all). In reality, I'd probably not include either the Nazis or the Communists, but I used the Hippies as an example of that. If there were no Nazis or Communists, I'd just not include the Cons at all because Tories are all counterrevolutionary running dog pigskin capitalist traitors. That was sarcasm; I don't like the Cons, but they shouldn't actually all be shot.
Also, I don't see what's so confusing about ranking some parties by order of amount you support (or leaving them off if you don't at all support them). It might require them to pay attention enough to know who the different parties are. Maybe I overestimate the intellect of the average voter. (Old Joke: "Sir, you have the vote of every thinking Canadian." "Yes, but I want a Majority.")
I think this allows for the inclusion of more varied options rather than forcing mediocrity. It makes it possible to actually vote for who you want rather than going "Oh no, but I'm really scared of these other guys! I better vote for the more popular option that opposes them!" This makes it more likely for people to make bold claims, if anything, because they'll want to stand out to get ranked higher.
And getting the first vote ranking should still be the most desirable spot. After all, if you get 50.000001% of the first round votes, you just win. I just remembered that's how math works. Even if you don't, but get most of them, it means you have less distance to overcome in order to win. After all, the race is to over 50%. As soon as that is hit, then the count finishes. It's over. The chances of it needing to go all the way down the list is pretty low.
What this allows is the expression of support for smaller parties rather than getting stuck with the same old boring parties. By freeing up people to vote for who they really support first of all, it might allow for some more interesting parties to actually get some wins. I like this. More coalitions. Fewer majorities. More compromise. Less absolute power. Better governance. But that's just me.
Though I suppose there is a chance for things to get messy. If a lot of, say, left wing parties all got similar percentages then they might get randomized basically. Same with right wing ones.
Some fair criticism though. I just really hate First Past the Post. Still the thing that pisses me off the most about Trudeau is that he promised election reform and then gave up on it almost immediately (surprise surprise, if you win an election, you probably don't want to change how the elections work).
I also don't think we really vote for our leaders. Parliamentary systems are kinda funny.
The French system is interesting. I don't like there being two election days, though. It's a pain in the neck unless it is a mandatory holiday for both of them. I suppose you could put your first round vote on the ballot and then a list of other parties, in order, you'd support in the second round vote if they make it in and your first round choice doesn't. That would cut it to a single election day... but then there is still the problem that Tempest mentioned of you maybe changing your mind with the new context. So I guess the second round might just be necessary. I kinda like the sound of it, though.
The Tories are likely going to hold on to power in the UK for almost 15 years. That's too much indeed. But the real problem, I think, is that they won a majority and after fucking up dramatically have not been instantly punished for it by having an election because they have a majority. Majorities just completely insulate a party from consequences for their idiocy. Also, as you say, if the Labour Party are trying to lose, but the Tories are just that bad... doesn't having really only two viable parties just suck? Like, the Lib-Dems might make a comeback, but they've been out of the game for ages, haven't they?
Justin Trudeau has also been around for a while, perhaps too long, but I'll vote for the Liberals again because the alternative is the Conservative Party, and I'd rather gut myself with a spoon. Or maybe I'll vote for the NDP, who never win general federal elections ever, but I despise the local candidate... unless the candidate changes. The NDP always wins in this district anyway (despite always losing generally), and at least they can hold the balance of power. I might as well vote Green... and they have problems too. I'm fairly sure this statement reveals several little problems with the existing voting system. But frankly, yeah, I'm kinda relieved I don't live in the UK. Canada's favourite election activity seems to be watching other countries fuck up their own elections so that we feel less bad about fucking up our own.
Also, to be fair, the only thing that might get me to ever vote for the Cons over here is nonsense gun control crap, but even then... I lived through a Con majority, and I'd rather never sully my conscience with a vote for them. The only time I would gladly vote Conservative is if the alternative were the Nazi-Communist Baby Eating Party. Or the fucking "People's Party", actually, now that I think of it.
|
|
|
Post by TempestFennac on Oct 23, 2023 3:59:58 GMT
It's been almost 100 years since the Liberal Democrats (known as the Liberals at the time) were in power on their own. Ignoring the Con-Dem years, the last time they were relevant was in the '70s where Labour last their tiny majority and had to rely on a confidence and supply agreement with the Liberals to get anything done (they became the Liberal Democrats in the '80s; the Liberals formed an alliance with the Social Democrats, who formed in '81 due to believing Labour under Michael Foot was too left-wing to get elected and the 2 parties eventually merged).
I'm nowhere near completing that world-building project I mentioned but would you like me to PM you what I have so far?
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 23, 2023 8:11:53 GMT
Be my guest. Warning though, I've been either busy or sick recently so I might take ages to get around to it.
And thanks. I knew that Labour basically replaced someone, but didn't remember what they were called exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 23, 2023 10:47:06 GMT
I think, for me, something I want from a democracy is a very clear winner. As I mentioned, I am super against any backroom horse trading deciding stuff. (Admittedly in America no one now seems to accept the results, as Hillary and Trump are STILL both claiming they were were each cheated, so I guess that concept has gone out of style.)
Another problem I didnt' mention with coalition governments is you can end up with parties that their supporters might hate working together.
LIke when the lib dems joined forces with the conservatives....lib dems and conservatives have almost nothing in common and their supporters probably dont support any of the othersides policies. The whole idea of "if we put our votes together" is anti democratic to me because I didn't vote for another party that now joins with the party I supported. I might hate that party and have chosen my original pick deliberately to keep that one out of power!
Two party politics helps achieve this, but the main down side is that you cna end up with the two main parties agreeing on something, and then voters basically have no options.
In the US, if you are anti immigration and against foreign military intervention, neither of the two main parties used to agree with you. One big reason for hte rise of Trump is that people who didn't support these things had no where to go, and it turns out there were a lot of them. So then Trump offered them an alternative and they jumped for it.
When people have issues and they feel they have no voice it is like a pressure cooker, building up steam. You can ignore it for a while but eventually it will get a release.
Trump was a symptom of this problem, so was Brexit.
I fear our leaders haven't learned the right lessons from these events though, because there are far worse things people could turn to in their frustration than Brexit and Trump.
And just to make clear, I am not saying whether immigration or military intervention are right or wrong, just that they are issues where most mainstream parties are in lock step agreement but a very large section of the public are vehemently against. (and those Issues were just two obvious examples, not saying they are the only ones.)
It is dangerous to make a large section of the population feel liek they have no power and no voice. Even if their opinions are horribly wrong, there needs to be representation of those view points in politics in some form.
If a lot of people have what are considered "wrong" views, the task should be to change their minds, not lock them out of the political process.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 23, 2023 10:50:28 GMT
Incidentally the Lib Dem/Tory alliance basically destroyed the libdems. They failed to get anything they wanted from the coalition and were left holding the can for everything that went wrong.
The Tories might not run the country well, and they usually evil bastards....but they understand politics and power.
They played the lib dems like a harp from hell.
So you would vote Cons if it would oppose the Nazi communist baby eaters.... Well Trudeau is pretty left wing on some stuff.... And he did clap that nazi...
Now I'm not saying he ever ate a baby....but I've never seen it proved that he DIDN'T eat one. That's all I'm sayin'!
|
|
|
Post by TempestFennac on Oct 23, 2023 17:35:20 GMT
The u-turn the Lib Dems made over university tuition fee increases was a major problem if I remember correctly (it did at least give us this lulzy remix of Nick Clegg apologising over it: ). Hopefully you'll feel better soon, Can.
|
|