Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    who cares if its undemocratic? you get benefits and would be worse off without said benefits thanks to the neoliberal tories

    stop whining brits
    So what are these benefits? And would you say there are any negatives?

    I am assuming you will say no negatives and hyperbolic positives.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    How does it make no sense?
    Why would 45% not get any representation?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Why would 45% not get any representation?
    Because in a direct non-FPTP election, it would only create 1 big winner. The losing party would not hold any power in this country.

    FPTP allows the losing party to hold some constituency seats from those they have won, which grants them power in the House of Commons.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Because in a direct non-FPTP election, it would only create 1 big winner. The losing party would not hold any power in this country.

    FPTP allows the losing party to hold some constituency seats from those they have won, which grants them power in the House of Commons.
    Sorry. Maybe I don't understand what "direct non-FPTP" means, can you explain?

    In Germany we do not have this kind of system. The number of MPs represent to a large part the actual voting distribution (there will of course always be small differences). Sure, the "losers" do not have "power" so to speak, as in the majority party should always be able to pass laws and legislation with their majority. But the losers are still represented and especially with multiple parties and a majority only being reached by coalitions, they do in effect have some sort of power.

    In your FPTP system, it is entirely possible that one party has say 20 million votes the other party 20 million and 650 votes, one vote more in each constituency, and then it will have 100% of MPs...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Sorry. Maybe I don't understand what "direct non-FPTP" means, can you explain?

    In Germany we do not have this kind of system. The number of MPs represent to a large part the actual voting distribution (there will of course always be small differences). Sure, the "losers" do not have "power" so to speak, as in the majority party should always be able to pass laws and legislation with their majority. But the losers are still represented and especially with multiple parties and a majority only being reached by coalitions, they do in effect have some sort of power.

    In your FPTP system, it is entirely possible that one party has say 20 million votes the other party 20 million and 650 votes, one vote more in each constituency, and then it will have 100% of MPs...
    I was referring to majority rule.

    The system in Germany is called proportional representation.

    In the UK, the power structure is split into government and local governments (ie. councils). Proportional representation is only possible in this case if we allow more than one person to manage the local government. If this is done it would be a very complicated process because each councils will then have frequent directional conflicts where each party's representative in the constituency would try to sway the policy to their direction. This would result in inefficiency. Some countries use PR either because they are smaller in population, or that their constituency sizes are much bigger.

    One could say statistically PR is a more representative system than FPTP, however a point to consider is that in FPTP, the winning candidate would have already adjusted their policy to appeal to the majority. In PR because majority is not needed to gain power, it could result in a less adjusted form or more extreme manifestos.

    Each system has their own benefits and flaws. However it just happens that the British preferred FPTP and have adjusted our power structure to suit the system. Personally I would not mind either of the system as it would produce similar results. In abstract term, FPTP is a system which generates representatives with a more consensus view, whereas PR would produce less-consensus representatives, however a consensus will ultimately be made when deciding policies. For both systems, in the end consensus will be made.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So what are these benefits? And would you say there are any negatives?

    I am assuming you will say no negatives and hyperbolic positives.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There are negatives. we pay too much, and the commission have way too many holidays. fisheries policy could be better.

    but the benefits are guaranteed consumer rights, guaranteed farming quality foods, guaranteed environmental protections (in some areas like beaches and farming), some guaranteed legal protections in regards to workers rights and EU precedents. guaranteed protection from cross national monopolies and cartels

    with a fully sovereign government, all these could be repealed

    NB immigrants are NOT a negative
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I was referring to majority rule.

    The system in Germany is called proportional representation.

    In the UK, the power structure is split into government and local governments (ie. councils). Proportional representation is only possible in this case if we allow more than one person to manage the local government. If this is done it would be a very complicated process because each councils will then have frequent directional conflicts where each party's representative in the constituency would try to sway the policy to their direction. This would result in inefficiency. Some countries use PR either because they are smaller in population, or that their constituency sizes are much bigger.

    One could say statistically PR is a more representative system than FPTP, however a point to consider is that in FPTP, the winning candidate would have already adjusted their policy to appeal to the majority. In PR because majority is not needed to gain power, it could result in a less adjusted form or more extreme manifestos.

    Each system has their own benefits and flaws. However it just happens that the British preferred FPTP and have adjusted our power structure to suit the system. Personally I would not mind either of the system as it would produce similar results. In abstract term, FPTP is a system which generates representatives with a more consensus view, whereas PR would produce less-consensus representatives, however a consensus will ultimately be made when deciding policies. For both systems, in the end consensus will be made.
    Have you ever read anything about Merkel? That is literally all she has been doing her entire time as Chancellor. In fact, it's so bad, it's pretty disgusting.

    And well, we disagree then, because I for sure would not want a system where many peoples' votes are wholly irrelevant. But hey, at least each constituency has a much better people to voting power ratio than the EU, coz that's what matters.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    There are negatives. we pay too much, and the commission have way too many holidays. fisheries policy could be better.

    but the benefits are guaranteed consumer rights, guaranteed farming quality foods, guaranteed environmental protections (in some areas like beaches and farming), some guaranteed legal protections in regards to workers rights and EU precedents. guaranteed protection from cross national monopolies and cartels

    with a fully sovereign government, all these could be repealed

    NB immigrants are NOT a negative
    Do you know what else a fully sovereign government could do? Abolish the NHS, repeal minimum wage legislation, get rid of gay rights legislation. Wait, did I say fully sovereign? They can do that already. Being able to do something is not the same as doing something. And saying that there are environmental protections relating to farming when CAP is a thing is simply laughable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Have you ever read anything about Merkel? That is literally all she has been doing her entire time as Chancellor. In fact, it's so bad, it's pretty disgusting.

    And well, we disagree then, because I for sure would not want a system where many peoples' votes are wholly irrelevant. But hey, at least each constituency has a much better people to voting power ratio than the EU, coz that's what matters.
    I am saying that on a local government level. On the government level there would be a lot more conviction and leadership, considering it passes the parliament.

    Considering every MEP is voted in the same way in every EU states, I would say either system would be fair play as there is an equal basis, but of course I wouldn't mind if it switches to FPTP or stay as PR. What is not fair, is the under-representation of the UK in the European Parliament, the proportion is not applied on an equal basis.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    CherishFreedom has absolutely won this thread IMO.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Do you know what else a fully sovereign government could do? Abolish the NHS, repeal minimum wage legislation, get rid of gay rights legislation. Wait, did I say fully sovereign? They can do that already. Being able to do something is not the same as doing something. And saying that there are environmental protections relating to farming when CAP is a thing is simply laughable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    IT IS ABOLISHING THE NHS THOUGH. THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHAT THE TORIES WILL DO.

    Give the government full power and they will have no accountability. Thats meant to be the point of a democracy but when democracy fails ( as demonstrated by FPTP and last election) is it not better to have a government which is limited in what it can do.?

    the electorate cant even pick a clear choice for our government (33-37% of vote) so how on earth can the tories be trusted to act in the interest of the public?

    Nah EU aint great but at least it has a history of legislating in favour of social policies instead of corporate moguls. i dont trust tories or the eu, but the tories are gonna win the next election and, because of that, i rather have eu as a checking system
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I am saying that on a local government level. On the government level there would be a lot more conviction and leadership, considering it passes the parliament.

    Considering every MEP is voted in the same way in every EU states, I would say either system would be fair play as there is an equal basis, but of course I wouldn't mind if it switches to FPTP or stay as PR. What is not fair, is the under-representation of the UK in the European Parliament, the proportion is not applied on an equal basis.
    How can you cry about the under representation of the UK and yet be happy with a FPTP system?

    And you have again proven my point that in the end the real issue is that you feel like you do not have enough power.

    I'm bored of this now.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    How can you cry about the under representation of the UK and yet be happy with a FPTP system?

    And you have again proven my point that in the end the real issue is that you feel like you do not have enough power.

    I'm bored of this now.
    I have stated the case for FPTP and it produces similar results to PR. I also stated I do not mind PR. It's strange that you criticised Merkel but Germany runs the PR system, which you seem to support.

    I am not surprised that you feel that my complaint is on the lack of power, nor have I denied that. I have stated that on post #5 that we are indeed lacking our deserved voting power in the European Parliament. It is only natural for the under-represented state to ask for equal treatment. I'm not sure what you are picking on now.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    IT IS ABOLISHING THE NHS THOUGH. THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHAT THE TORIES WILL DO.

    Give the government full power and they will have no accountability. Thats meant to be the point of a democracy but when democracy fails ( as demonstrated by FPTP and last election) is it not better to have a government which is limited in what it can do.?

    the electorate cant even pick a clear choice for our government (33-37% of vote) so how on earth can the tories be trusted to act in the interest of the public?

    Nah EU aint great but at least it has a history of legislating in favour of social policies instead of corporate moguls. i dont trust tories or the eu, but the tories are gonna win the next election and, because of that, i rather have eu as a checking system
    Oh god, is there any point arguing with you if you're one of these nuts that believes the NHS is on the brink of true privatisation. And the EU is there FOR the "corporate moguls", the laws are made for them. The EU is an institution businesses lobby to allow them to be uncompetitive by trying to force competition and innovation out of the market. The beat way for a business to do well is to invest a few million into lobbying.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I have stated the case for FPTP and it produces similar results to PR. I also stated I do not mind PR. It's strange that you criticised Merkel but Germany runs the PR system, which you seem to support.

    I am not surprised that you feel that my complaint is on the lack of power, nor have I denied that. I have stated that on post #5 that we are indeed lacking our deserved voting power in the European Parliament. It is only natural for the under-represented state to ask for equal treatment. I'm not sure what you are picking on now.
    You were the one who brought up that FPTP would make the winner try to do something for the majority...I just pointed out that's a mute point. Yet again I am replying to you by having to repeat myself. This is ridiculous now.

    At the end of the day I will not even vote and as I said, I'd actually be happy if you guys left. I would laugh a lot at seeing your hopes get crushed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I dont get this "le eu protects us from our government" meme

    You elect the government. You don't elect the EU. If our government did go full retard and do all the things you said it would, it wouldnt get elected again and the next parliament would just fix what they did. If the EU did that stuff? Sucks to be you ******, no vote for you
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    You were the one who brought up that FPTP would make the winner try to do something for the majority...I just pointed out that's a mute point. Yet again I am replying to you by having to repeat myself. This is ridiculous now.

    At the end of the day I will not even vote and as I said, I'd actually be happy if you guys left. I would laugh a lot at seeing your hopes get crushed.
    Germany does not run the FPTP system, it runs the PR system. So my point that 'FPTP would make the winner try to do something for the majority' has nothing to do with Germany.

    You were also the one bringing up the FPTP system and comparing it to the EU's PR system, which I have explained I have no problem with either the FPTP or PR system, the point of dispute is on the basis of equality.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Once again: you know it is disingenuous to say that the commission is the equivalent of the civil service, so why do you keep doing so?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But I haven't said the UK civil service is the equivalent of the Commission.

    Redmond said no group should be able to exercise legislative power who could not be removed by the people. I said that the British civil service exercised de facto legislative power without being removable by the people. I could have referred to members of the House of Lords or the Bishops in General Synod. Would you then accuse me of saying that the Commission was equivalent to the Bench of Bishops?

    You then pointed out that the Commission had more power than the British civil service. I said that it wasn't necessarily more powerful than the French civil service.

    You described the Commission as the government of the EU. I said that I thought that wasn't so since the creation of the office of president of the Council.

    The truth is that there is no equivalent of the Commission in any modern state I am familiar with.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Stop saying the EU is undemocratic when in reality all that is going on is a) You don't want to be part of Europe and b) You don't think Britain has enough power in the Europe.

    .
    I am afraid this is one of the reasons that the Leave campaign is struggling to obtain traction amongst the uncommitted. Leave supporters are constantly looking for factoids which "prove" their case, despite such factoids not being the basis of their own opposition to the EU and the Great British public keep going "so what".

    To win the argument, Leave had to put forward a credible vision of life outside the EU; what would change and what would stay the same. They have not been able to do so because firstly their visions compete on immigration and trade and secondly, they are unable to admit any particular thing will get worse in order to achieve a greater good.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.