Electoral Reform?

[Fred Whittaker]

I remember having a debate at school in around 1962 about the Electoral System. I did a bit of research, as I knew little about the subject, and could not believe the statistics I came up with. Considering the number of people registered to vote, the number who actually voted on the day and the votes cast for each party, the government of the day is elected with only 20% of the total votes available. The word "democracy" means "government by all the people", roughly translated as "majority rule".

Question 1: How would you change the system to achieve an elected government which represents the majority of the electorate?

[Hartley G]

Answer 1. Compulsory voting, though that may lead to compulsory attendance and many spoilt ballot papers. Internet can be used to collect the electorate's responses to government performance: how far to go with that tool?

[Michael Conway]

Compulsory voting but making it much easier to vote. So increased use of postal votes, and the introduction of voting via the internet and by telephone.

[Fred Whittaker]

Compulsory voting would not give us a government which would be representative of all the people, or of the majority. All we might get is a slightly higher percentage vote for the party who wins - 25 to 30% at most. We would still have a minority government under the first-past-the-post system, just as we have now and have had for many decades. The question I asked is how would you change the SYSTEM so that we get a government which represents the majority.

[Hartley G]

Yes, I see how your question can be viewed as prompting answers of the kind you suggest, but I fear that your outline of the expected answer has rather spoiled the pie-and-peas party I had hoped to enjoy. Your Capitalisation of SYSTEM reminds me of the terror I felt when Cartledge told me that my answer to his question about aliphatic amines was worth no marks. 'System' is more than its dictionary definition - thanks to Kant, Wittgenstein and Ayer for that.

[Michael Conway]

Compulsory voting would not give us a government which would be representative of all the people, or of the majority. All we might get is a slightly higher percentage vote for the party who wins - 25 to 30% at most. We would still have a minority government under the first-past-the-post system, just as we have now and have had for many decades. The question I asked is how would you change the SYSTEM so that we get a government which represents the majority.

Well I have had my thinking cap on for sometime now thinking over this very question but have not been able to come up with an answer. So back to you, Fred. What are your thoughts? And my question to everyone now that we have had a coalition government for a couple of weeks: what do you think of it so far?  

[Fred Whittaker]

As I see it the present system always produces a minority government. The opposition then appear to take their title literally and oppose everything the government do, or propose to do, aided and abetted by the 80% of the population who did not vote for the party in power. We elect a party, then spend the next five years trying to undermine it and everyone in it. Is it any wonder the country seems to lurch from one crisis to another?

Perhaps it is the vested interests which are hindering progress. Big business backing the Tories and the unions backing Labour, so that when they get into power they each try to run things for the benefit of their paymasters, instead of for the population as a whole. How often has a good idea that would have benefited the country been lost because the government would not take it on board as it was not their idea?

I think that a system of proportional representation to elect the government is probably the first step towards electoral and political reform. This would inevitably bring about a coalition government to start with and it would not be easy. However, if we accepted that coalition is the way forward, could we not look at how other countries operated theirs, then cherry-pick their good points, eliminate the bad points and practices and produce a new way of governing which would show the rest of the world how it should be done?

Not an easy undertaking, but anything is better than the undemocratic, out-of-date system we have now, don't you think?

[Hartley G]

Ticker, I fear that the matter has already developed a complexity beyond my enfeebled capacity to encompass it. I'm stuck at 'represent', 'democracy' and what they mean. Indeed, I'm stuck at 'mean'. So I'm stuck fast in a mud of depth and viscosity I can't measure, even though I made the mud!

Who can represent me as well as me, save for a most outstanding replica of me? Indeed, when I meet another I announce my name and add 'or his most outstanding replica'. If I ask another to act as my agent, I can be no more certain that hesh [he/she] will act as my replica than I can be certain that my own view will be contemplation-stable. More on this later.

[Michael Conway]

Ticker, I fear that the matter has already developed a complexity beyond my enfeebled capacity to encompass it. I'm stuck at 'represent', 'democracy' and what they mean. Indeed, I'm stuck at 'mean'. So I'm stuck fast in a mud of depth and viscosity I can't measure, even though I made the mud!

Who can represent me as well as me, save for a most outstanding replica of me? Indeed, when I meet another I announce my name and add 'or his most outstanding replica'. If I ask another to act as my agent, I can be no more certain that hesh [he/she] will act as my replica than I can be certain that my own view will be contemplation-stable. More on this later.

Fred, I will agree with what Graham is saying . . . that's when I figure out what he is saying! It wasn't this complex when voting in the Eurovision Song Contest, I'm sure.

[Hartley G]

Thanks, Michael, for your agreement with my position. My view of representation is that another can act as my agent but may not always act as I would - and my own view of how to act may change. The concept of representation is related to a surrender of my own choice to my representative, who may not always represent me perfectly and indeed cannot do so if my view changes. I am careless with language here, and feel uncomfortable whenever I am so careless. After Louis' and Big Jim's attention, language became my interest and career.

Denmark's Eurovision entry pleased me the most. Although I am certain that the song was most pleasing, I'm not at all certain about how I measured it so.

[Michael Conway]

Exactly! Very succinctly put. I couldn't have expressed it better myself.

By the way, we had Fred's question number 1 above. I wonder what question number 2 will be.

[Fred Whittaker]

Question 2:  Is anyone going to answer Question 1?    A non-complex answer would suffice. Having only got as far as O level English Language, I find the KISS approach works best for me (Keep It Simple Stupid).  

[Hartley G]

Well I have had my thinking cap on for sometime now thinking over this very question but have not been able to come up with an answer. So back to you, Fred. What are your thoughts? And my question to everyone now that we have had a coalition government for a couple of weeks: what do you think of it so far?  
[/quote]

...so far? This conjunction offers a view of space and/or time which is oddly not associated with measurement. What sense could we make of 'what do you think of this coalition two weeks after its establishment, and what is the relationship between thinking and two weeks?'? Or 'what is the relationship between thinking and time?' Does thinking have its equivalent of entropy, from which we can arrive at a T-symmetric view?

Above, pace Wallwork, the repeated question mark is intended.

[Fred Whittaker]

I had hoped we would have a discussion about the question and not about the meaning of words. I suppose the next reply will be about the meaning of life...but not as we know it, Jim!

[Hartley G]

Hmm... I expressed a fear that my abilities were enfeebled - for at least the reason that I am inclined to consider every question to be a trap, a trick. So I did my worst. Sorry, Ticker.