In recent U.K elections the Alliance Party received 42,762 votes and gained 1 seat. Here are the votes received by other parties that didn’t gain
Info Source: news.bbc.co.uk...
“UK Independence Party: 917,832 3.1 +0.9
British National Party 563,743 votes
Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force 102,361
English Democrats 64,826 votes
Respect-Unity Coalition 33,251 votes
Traditional Unionist Voice 26,300 votes
Christian Party: 18,623 votes
Independent Community and Health Concern 16,150 votes
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition 12,275 votes
Scottish Socialist Party 3,157 votes
Others 319,891 votes delivers 1 seat
The Raw Facts…
1. Total votes for 10 other political parties is 1,758,518 votes
2. Number of seats held by the 10 political parties: is 0
3. The average number of votes, per political party is 175,851.8 votes, each (over 4.1 times the number of votes gained by the Alliance Party which
obtained 1 Seat!!!)
4. Add another 319,891 votes (from all other, lesser, political parties) and the last 2,078,409 votes obtained only seat.
5. Yet 29,653,638 U.K citizens voted for 650 seats, which is 45,620.98 votes per seat. In a mathematically, proportional system, the last 2,078,409
would obtain 45.55 votes (instead of just 1).
6. It's true these last 2,078,409 votes were just 7.008% of all votes cast.
7. But 10,342,633
votes were cast for political parties other than the dominant “Con-Lab” parties. These 10 million votes obtained a total
of 85 seats (i.e. an average of 1 seat for every 1,21,678.03
8. Meanwhile the “Con-Lab” parties received 19,311,005 votes, and obtained a total of 564 seats, (i.e. an average of 1 seat for every
9. Because the average number of votes, per seat, is 1,21,678.0353 for all other political parties, voting for the Con-Lab group obtains over
3.55 times more Westminster Seats (per vote)
. Is this really "functional democracy"?
My Thoughts About the Statistics…
Might we as well, have a mathematically, proportional, system, but then deliberately count the vote for people who vote Conservative or Labour over
3.55 times as often, as any other vote?
Because that’s also a fair representation, of what happened on May the 6th 2010 when the U.K.
government, held its people, an election.
Apparently one major advantages of the “first pass the post” voting system (or “first loose the post” system, as I prefer to see it!) is that,
it delivers, something called “strong government”. But the 2010 election delivered the United Kingdom a “hung parliament”. This means the
government is anything but strong, because it commands less than half of all seats.
But I agree our government is certainly a lot “stronger” than a Two Party State that openly awards itself 3.55 times more votes.
It’s because the ability for the Con-Lab parties to “hide behind” an ancient, flawed, system (but “flawed” in a way that benefits
!) is a far stronger (intellectual position) for combating either popular discontent, or rebellion, than a system that’s
(mathematically) equally as unfair, but more open-blatant about its unfairness(s).
So I believe this is the major reason why the U.K electorate have tolerated “post pass the post” for centuries.
But it’s also because over time, and over most (but obviously never all political issues) the Con-Lab parties have began to resemble something,
more-like a Group, than two independent-competing political bodies. Between them, they have held power for nearly a century, and during this time they
have certainly been loyal to each others "convictions-concerns" in opposing the reform of the “post pass the post” electoral system.
I'm also aware that one of the (apparent) advantages of a dictatorship is also strong government. The government is very strong because little time
is lost considering the opposition. Barring a mad-man like Adolf Hitler, I seriously question whether a dictator would be better in leading our
country out its problems, than the type of democracy we currently have.
The U.K government is currently spending more than 26% than it receives in tax’s. See for yourself, from our treasuries own website:
And (no doubt, partly because, no party wanted to be unpopular) none of the 3 major, political parties promised to return public spending to less than
what the treasury receives in tax’s, even after the next election (in up to 5 years time!!!). A dictator in comparison wouldn’t be frustrated by
these self-serving, party political, games.
I'm neither arguing, or suggesting that the current U.K electoral system, is inferior to a dictatorship.
I'm just suggesting that the fact
it “might be” inferior to the right type of dictatorship, led by the right kind of person-people, is hardly cause of celebration, for any kind of
democracy (but especially a dysfunctional one!!!).
Does Our System “Only” Disadvantage 10,342,633 voters?
For me, this is the most irritating obstacle in preventing anyone from (justifiably) viewing the U.K as a “functional democracy”. It’s the fact,
that the reason why many 19,311,005 people who voted Con-Lab, did as they did, was because many believed they’re vote would be “wasted”
Many feel their vote will be “wasted” if it doesn’t help one of the major political parties, remain dominant over all other political parties.
It’s because only by voting for one of the two parties, does your vote has so much more “effect-value” (I doubt very few people actually
calculate that its over 3.55 times more!) but many of the electorate are certainly aware of the difference).
I personally believe that a vote could hardly be more wasted than by supporting a major political party, that you (basically) disagreed with.
Especially when the extra “effect value” of you your vote is stifling (more times than one) the efforts of other voters, from all other
I understand others may disagree with my point of view. But we simply mustn’t have a system that so dramatically cuts the voting power “effect
value”, of anybody who chooses to vote for anyone, other than two “top dogs” (or maybe pigs is more appropriate word?) But no offence to pigs or
Finally Another “Failure” in our Constitution…
Currently the British Constitution (“unwritten” or otherwise!) delivers us a Labour Prime Minister in the form of the (unpopular) Gordon Brown.
Unpopular because about 29% of people want him as PM. This is in spite of the fact that the (less unpopular) Conservative, leader, David Cameron (with
42% popular support) Source…
leads a political party with 306 seats, as opposed to Gordon Brown’s 258 seats. Nevertheless Gordon Brown is PM, and will remain so until the
Conservatives form a coalition, with more than half of, parliament’s seats. If they Tories don’t succeed, then the man with the 2nd number of
votes (and seats) will remain as our national leader. How is this constitution “wise”? Let alone justified!?
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]