The British Election

[neilsimon]

...
You're assuming that mob rule is best.

What you describe as "mob rule", is simply democracy

I disagree. I think the system that produces "peace, order, and good government" is the best form of government to have. It might be the best system in some countries, but for most of the world I don't think it's an ideal to strive for.

I'm not familiar enough with the Ireland situation to comment on how it works there, but in some countries it sucks big time. Look at Iraq where the majority just use democracy to take away the rights of the minority.

Yes, but look at Canada where the minority get to rule the majority basically every time. A tyranny of the majority is bad, but a tyranny of the minority is considerably worse.

In Canada's Parliamentary system it would suck too because there are almost no free votes as it is, and then we give even more power to the parties on who gets selected. We would probably end up the Bloc or some other fringe party forcing the government into doing things the majority of the country doesn't want just to keep the government going until the next confidence vote. I don't have much a problem with that myself, but there are a half dozen other reasons I don't like PR, but that has been discussed in another thread.

PR systems, in stable countries, tend to result in cooperation and collaboration. Minor parties do not get to control the larger parties as larger parties tend to prefer being in opposition to being completely unable to deliver on their manifesto and forced to deliver another's.

[The Green Barbarian]

If you look at the numbers, the SDLP and UUP, the two less extremist parties of note in Northern Ireland, both would have won seats under PR, and we would not be looking at a situation where extremists had essentially become the leaders in NI.
If you go south of the border, to Ireland, you'll notice that they have PR, decades of fairly centrist rule, and an economy doing about as well as ours (actually roughly 20% better income, GDP, etc. but higher unemployment too). They also have PR and it works really well for them since you never have the undemocratic situation where a group getting significantly less than 50% of the vote actually gets into power.

I realize that you have to start somewhere in analyzing what "would have been" under PR, but I firmly believe that people would vote differently if PR was in place rather than FPTP. For instance, it's a mistake to say that the Green Party would have received 15 seats under PR in BC, as a lot of people voted Green out of protest, knowing that they weren't going to win under our current system of FPTP. If there was a chance under PR of them gaining more seats, a lot of people wouldn't have voted for them, as no one benefits from those lunatics having any power.

[The Green Barbarian]

PR systems, in stable countries, tend to result in cooperation and collaboration. .

really though? Cooperation and collaboration with lunatics both far right and left doesn't really help anyone, it just wastes everyone's time. Under our system, those freaks stay where they belong, far from the corridors of power.

[neilsimon]

If you look at the numbers, the SDLP and UUP, the two less extremist parties of note in Northern Ireland, both would have won seats under PR, and we would not be looking at a situation where extremists had essentially become the leaders in NI.
If you go south of the border, to Ireland, you'll notice that they have PR, decades of fairly centrist rule, and an economy doing about as well as ours (actually roughly 20% better income, GDP, etc. but higher unemployment too). They also have PR and it works really well for them since you never have the undemocratic situation where a group getting significantly less than 50% of the vote actually gets into power.

I realize that you have to start somewhere in analyzing what "would have been" under PR, but I firmly believe that people would vote differently if PR was in place rather than FPTP.

Of course. Tactical voting tends to just go out the window. People vote for the politicians who best match their personal views.

For instance, it's a mistake to say that the Green Party would have received 15 seats under PR in BC, as a lot of people voted Green out of protest, knowing that they weren't going to win under our current system of FPTP.

Maybe so, maybe more would have voted for them knowing that tactical voting was pointless. Plenty of people didn't vote Green to prevent splitting the vote. I cannot claim to know the answer here.

If there was a chance under PR of them gaining more seats, a lot of people wouldn't have voted for them, as no one benefits from those lunatics having any power.

Some might disagree with you. I personally don't know the answer here and wouldn't be sure enough of what I suspect would happen to put much weight in it.

[Glacier]

Yes, but look at Canada where the minority get to rule the majority basically every time. A tyranny of the majority is bad, but a tyranny of the minority is considerably worse.

Tyranny is bad unless democracy leads to the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS, then tyranny by the minority is actually better.

Green Barbarian is right about how voting with change with PR. For example, I voted Green last election, but if there were PR, I would have voted Liberal.

[neilsimon]

...
really though? Cooperation and collaboration with lunatics both far right and left doesn't really help anyone, it just wastes everyone's time. Under our system, those freaks stay where they belong, far from the corridors of power.

The thing is that "lunatics both far right and left" rarely get any real sway with PR. Unless you get 10% of the vote, you just aren't going to be able to do much. Additionally, it is incumbent on the larger parties to not engage in supporting bad law just to stay in power, but they need to recognise that sometimes smaller parties have good ideas.

[neilsimon]

Yes, but look at Canada where the minority get to rule the majority basically every time. A tyranny of the majority is bad, but a tyranny of the minority is considerably worse.

Tyranny is bad unless democracy leads to the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS, then tyranny by the minority is actually better.

Imagine a small group instituting the likes of ISIS upon Canada, say one where native French speakers were the only people entitled to own land, hold office, own weapons, vehicles, receive education, etc. Those are modelled after the Penal Laws. That's what a tyranny of the minority looks like. Look at apartheid, that's what a tyranny of the minority looks like.

Green Barbarian is right about how voting with change with PR. For example, I voted Green last election, but if there were PR, I would have voted Liberal.

Yes, one sample point is essentially worthless though. Hence why I don't claim to have a strong idea of the answer here.

[Glacier]

The thing is that "lunatics both far right and left" rarely get any real sway with PR. Unless you get 10% of the vote, you just aren't going to be able to do much.

That's a bad thing with PR. You don't get a chance to throw the bums out when they screw up. I suspect that's why you as a leftist love PR. It means bigger government and a much lower chance of removing them from office when they expand beyond where they should.

Yes, one sample point is essentially worthless though. Hence why I don't claim to have a strong idea of the answer here.

We also have the example of the 1952 election. Yes, people do vote different when you change the voting system.

We are going off topic. How about going over here or here.