Coalition Governments Are Undemoctratic

Should we have an additional option on the ballot paper where we can also vote for or against a coalition government or re-election in the event of another hung parliament? Is it right that we're forced to have a government we haven't voted for? How is that democracy?

We have ended up with a Tory government that didn't win the election. It's not a coalition government, it's a Tory government through and through.

I can see a possibility of it all happening again. If they don't get a majority count they'll just conspire between them to add their votes together with those of another party and take the election, whether the citizens of the UK like it or not.

Using our vote isn't enough any more, not when we don't have a say in what they do with those votes after they've been cast. I don't want my vote counted towards a combined party, but that option is not on the ballot paper.

Democracy my bum.

What are you sayin?

a reply to: doobydoll

Be glad you live in a country where you have proportional representation and coalition governments are possible. In the United States we have a winner take all system. Low voter turnout means that both the entire legislative branch as well as the Chief Executive can be dominated by a single political party that only got votes from a tiny minority of the eligible electorate.

a reply to: DJW001

What about those who can be bothered to vote, and then without being asked, our vote gets counted towards installing a totally different government, one that wasn't on the ballot paper but was dreamed up on the spot, but yet we're stuck with?

I hear you critisism, and see the same happening here with our conservative coalition. I dont nessicarily agree with your solution, to ban coalitions--I dont know how that could work, but something needs to be done about our political system, it just does not work.

a reply to: doobydoll

I agree. We should either elect a clear majority, or have periods where there is no government until a new ballot can be taken.

Our will should come before the needs of the system. We are the power, and it is time the political establishment got back on their knees and accepted that fact.

Nothing will change until they make voting mandatory. With the current system only those who bother to vote decide which means that those who can't be a..ed to think or decide are letting the active minority decide for all of us. As the turnout gets lower the proportion of hardened "vote for party x no matter what" gets ever higher.

If voting was mandatory people would have to think, I suspect (anecdotally) that that is the main reason for them not voting. The "they are all the same" chorus is boring and wrong. I doubt if there is one single constituency anywhere that has only ever had a choice of three. The final vote is a spoilt ballot, which does get counted and announced. It will not change the outcome BUT imagine if the majority of votes were spoilt. The press would have a field day hounding the elected MP claiming that he/she does not really have a mandate given the amount of protest votes.

Imagine if more than half of parliament was for "spoilt" constituencies. No party could withstand the torrent of abuse from everyone.

a reply to: yorkshirelad
We have manditory voting here and we still have the same problem, yeah I think manditory voting would improve the democratic process but you would still have the elected-by-minority coalitions.

One thing that gets a bit of traction here is the abolishing of political parties, eliminating the party room and whips. This will allow each member to vote independantly on bills, and not vote on them by party policy. There are some problems with that system, but IMHO I think it could work.

a reply to: doobydoll

Hmmm... You have a point and the political system does need serious reform, but it is hard to argue that the Tory's "didn't win".

They got more of the popular vote than any other party - beating the second placed Labour by over 2 million votes, but owing to the rather squiffy way seats are divided amongst constituencies of varying sizes (Labour control lots of smaller, urban seats) they couldn't wrestle a majority in the commons.

It is also worth pointing out they got more of the popular vote in 2010 than Labour did in 2005 (36.1% compared to 35.2%) but in 2005 Labour had a majority of 66, keeping hold of 355 seats, while the Tories in 2010 had no majority with 307 seats.

As for calling the coalition "undemocratic", I'm not so sure. The Libs tempered the Tories on quite a few policy area's and even introduced some good polices of their own. This is how Parliaments around the world work - especially in Europe. At the end of the day, the combined vote between the two parties was 59%. The fact they worked together to sort the mess Labour left us in is worth some credit.

I also don't remember anyone saying that the Labour Governments were "undemocratic" when they never polled more the 43% (1997 landslide) of the electorate, but like I said above, owing to the curious distribution of seats in urban area's and the bloody first past the post system, they ended up with a majority of hundreds, controlling 2/3rds of Parliament near enough.

What you're describing and complaining about is the peculiar, centuries old systems we have. It isn't fit for purpose and there is so much wrong I don't know where to begin. For starters, political parties have no place in Parliament - they are not recognised at all - all this "whip" business is entirely the construct of the parties themselves, for example.

When you vote, you should be voting for your representative, not a political party, but few people realise this and vote along party lines, some voting for the same party year on year for the most bizarre of reasons, such as they "always have", or their parents did, etc. You could put a donkey up in some area's with the right coloured ribbon on and people would vote for it.

At the end of the day, this is a problem of our own making. Most people don't give a toss, most saying politics is "boring" but then moan about their taxes, for example, as if the two are separate things! If more people voted and if more people took the time to understand the issues and how the system works, we might actually get a system that represents us properly, not the very distorted system we have right now.

Unfortunately, unless there is changes in the method of voting, how Parliament operates and the uneven constituencies sorted out, we will always have a problem with Governments the majority didn't vote for.

Quick question - when was the last Government that got more than 50% of the vote (much less 50% of the total electorate when 40% don't bother to vote)? You may be surprised....

Democracy = Bad

Republic = Good

See how you have lost already?

a reply to: LDragonFire

American, I presume?

I only ask as it seems you guys have a real problem with the words Democracy and Republic. I've done this to death, but being a Republic doesn't mean your not a Democracy and being a democracy doesn't mean you're not a Republic.

Being a Republic means one thing and one thing only, there is no Hereditary Monarch - nothing more, nothing less.

There are many types of Republic, ranging from the American form, which is a Federal Republic which uses democratic principles to elect it's leaders, whereas you can have ones like North Korea or China which are autocratic and don't have any elements of democratic Government.

Basically, the two terms aren't mutually exclusive. One is a form of Government and one is a method of selection.

The UK is actually a Constitutional Monarchy.

a reply to: stumason

Either way we are both hopelessly bound by a 2 party dominated system. When they win they claim a right to spend political capital even though there wins are not overwhelming.

Am I even close?

We should have a "F**k each and every one of you greedy C*%TS" option on the ballot paper.

There is only one party telling me what i want to hear and if they get into power it will be the same sh!t when they do a million U-turns and suit themselves! This country is seriously lacking any leadership/representation for the average Brit. Im genuinely concerned that our main options are a conservative prick, a fancy liberal twat bag and the idiot who forget's to talk about the economy at his own political speech.

I WOULD RATHER VOTE FOR A CHICKEN.