Are American Politics Broken?

[notyoueither]

wezil - in the UK there are a number of MPs who often vote against their parties on various issues. sometimes parties invoke a three line whip which is meant to force MPs to vote with party's position. the majority fall in line, but there are some who 'lose the whip' for a time. it's very rare for an MP to be kicked out by a party for not towing the line.

there have been cases where a party has deselected a popular local MP in an attempt to impose a centrally chosen candidate. this sometimes backfires. i remember one case where labour deselected a welsh MP and imposed a candidate. the deselected guy won a thumping majority as an independent at the next election.

What is the mechanism by which the party can impose a candidate for a riding in the UK?

In Canada it is that the candidate must obtain the party leader's signature on nomination papers. Not surprisingly, that is the single biggest factor in how our system has gone disfunctional (IMO).

[notyoueither]

i think it's silly to call one system faulty and another system sound. each system has its positives and negatives, and while i have acknowledged the negatives which come with PR, you have not said a word about the problems with FPTP.

Because I concede that FPTP has problems, or is less than theoretically ideal?

My problem with PR is that the solution is worse than the problem. I'm interested in a balance of things that lead to best government. I do not believe that Greece or Italy have been well served by PR systems.

and what is 'representation'? from what wezil says, it seems that your MPs represent their parties first and the local people distant second.

The concerns of local residents are put forth by MPs in caucus, the legislature and to government. Collectively they form a consensus. Things may be tinkered with, but fundamentally I feel this is crucial for a well functioning democracy.

Wezil is not painting a complete picture. I grant that the parties have too much power over MPs. The solution to that is not to give the parties more power.

[C0ckney]

What is the mechanism by which the party can impose a candidate for a riding in the UK?

In Canada it is that the candidate must obtain the party leader's signature on nomination papers. Not surprisingly, that is the single biggest factor in how our system has gone disfunctional (IMO).

there are different rules for different parties, but usually parties decide a shortlist of candidates that are acceptable to them and local associations choose from that list. usually they will choose people who have a connection to the area and sometimes will choose people not on the approved list. however 'rising stars' will often find their way into safe seats, despite having no connections to an area.

sometimes the intervention will be more direct. the labour party for example has a national executive which can veto the choice of a non-list candidate or even a list one if, for example, damaging information about them comes to light after having been selected. this is usually fairly controversial. they can also impose things like all-women short lists, which obviously can be used as a ploy to exclude people.

[C0ckney]

Because I concede that FPTP has problems, or is less than theoretically ideal?

because you ignored the various problems that i pointed out that would be solved with a PR system.

My problem with PR is that the solution is worse than the problem. I'm interested in a balance of things that lead to best government. I do not believe that Greece or Italy have been well served by PR systems.

that's a very weak argument. i don't see any evidence that the problems of greece and italy (which uses an additional member system - similar to that which is used in scotland - not pure PR) are linked to the fact that they use proportional systems. if they were you would expect to see similar problems in other countries which use PR, but of course there are many well run countries which use proportional systems.

The concerns of local residents are put forth by MPs in caucus, the legislature and to government. Collectively they form a consensus. Things may be tinkered with, but fundamentally I feel this is crucial for a well functioning democracy.

Wezil is not painting a complete picture. I grant that the parties have too much power over MPs. The solution to that is not to give the parties more power.

you keep saying this but this is far from the most serious problem with FPTP and you ignore the rest.

under a FPTP system, huge numbers of people in 'safe seats' get no representation. their political views don't matter, their votes are meaningless, they might as well not bother and many of them don't. or if they do vote, instead of actually voting according to their political preferences, they vote for the lesser of the evils or tactically to keep out the reds/blues.

[OzzyKP]

you keep saying this but this is far from the most serious problem with FPTP and you ignore the rest.

under a FPTP system, huge numbers of people in 'safe seats' get no representation. their political views don't matter, their votes are meaningless, they might as well not bother and many of them don't. or if they do vote, instead of actually voting according to their political preferences, they vote for the lesser of the evils or tactically to keep out the reds/blues.

Which is why some kind of preference voting is ideal. It solves all the issues you have with FPTP but keeps the good parts about it.

[C0ckney]

preferential voting can produce perverse results and is not proportional. it absolutely does not solve the issues i raised.

[C0ckney]

just to be clear, i'm talking elections for legislatures. i don't have a problem with preferential voting when there's only one position up for grabs (so like a mayor or president).

[Zevico]

Preferential voting means you vote for your preferred candidate and party for your local MP, and lose nothing even if that local candidate isn't popular enough to win this time. In other words, it does away with strategic voting considerations entirely. It isn't proportional but so what?

[Wezil]

under a FPTP system, huge numbers of people in 'safe seats' get no representation. their political views don't matter, their votes are meaningless, they might as well not bother and many of them don't. or if they do vote, instead of actually voting according to their political preferences, they vote for the lesser of the evils or tactically to keep out the reds/blues.

That's a huge problem here as our politics are very regional. A non-Conservative living in Alberta is **** out of luck for getting any representation besides a Conservative (often a Conservative that Conservatives don't even want. i.e. Rob Anders - supported and protected by the Party).

It sounds like the PMO has much greater power under our system than yours. Cabinets used to matter in this country but even they are becoming meaningless as all policy is dictated and vetted through the PMO now. We are truly in a bad spot. If not for the Courts (where our current government fares abysmally) there would be no check on PMO power.

[C0ckney]

Preferential voting means you vote for your preferred candidate and party for your local MP, and lose nothing even if that local candidate isn't popular enough to win this time. In other words, it does away with strategic voting considerations entirely. It isn't proportional but so what?

preferential voting does nothing to address tactical voting, in fact, in many ways it makes it even more intricate. it does not solve the problem of false majorities and in some cases makes them worse. it doesn't solve the problem of the lack of representation for people who don't share the dominant political view in an area. it does not allow parties representation in parliament according to their share of the vote. it does nothing to solve the 'safe seat' problem. in short, it does nothing to solve the problems that the FPTP system creates.

[C0ckney]

That's a huge problem here as our politics are very regional. A non-Conservative living in Alberta is **** out of luck for getting any representation besides a Conservative (often a Conservative that Conservatives don't even want. i.e. Rob Anders - supported and protected by the Party).

it's fairly regional in the UK. there are many, many places where the devil himself could win a handsome majority as long as he was wearing the appropriately coloured red/blue rosette. it reduces electoral contests to a minority of marginal seats. those in safe seats with differing views have no electoral voice.

It sounds like the PMO has much greater power under our system than yours. Cabinets used to matter in this country but even they are becoming meaningless as all policy is dictated and vetted through the PMO now. We are truly in a bad spot. If not for the Courts (where our current government fares abysmally) there would be no check on PMO power.

under blair there was a lot of criticism that government had become too presidential. under the coalition things have improved and there seems to have been something of a return to cabinet government, although i don't attribute this too any great democratic instincts on behalf of cameron, but rather on the realities of being in coalition.

[Wezil]

I was forced to vote for the socialists last time out to prevent a Conservative from "coming up the middle". I felt so dirty.

[C0ckney]

tactical voting is the devil.

[Wezil]

Unfortunately our current Conservative Party is the Devil's plaything.

[Wezil]

My socialist MP is awesome for entertainment value.

She once publicly accused a Conservative member of watching porn on his iphone while sitting in the House. He was actually viewing pictures of his family's vacation...