From the desk of the Scriptorium
Election series 2010: The UK
I realize that most of the people in the US could care less about the elections in the UK…..I think they are mistaken…….
I have been asked why I subject myself to the agony of politics…..the answer is easy….my education made me a political addict….it is the most fascinating of subjects…..I meet a lot of good friends and a bunch of crazies….both are interesting in their own way….and the exchange of views is almost a good exercise…..I have also been asked why I would be interested in the politics of another country….that is easy also…they have a different type of government and it plays differently than the Federal system we have here……I also depend on my friend Quin from Quintessential Havoc (blogroll will get you there) to help me understand better and to fill in the gaps that I will no doubt have in my posts concerning the UK and the EU…….
The election for PM of Britain is under way…..they have Brown from Labor, Cameron from the Tories and Clegg from the Liberal Democrats….as best I can tell it is pretty much a draw right now, but the LibDem Clegg is making lots of noise and could be a spoiler for one of the dudes….
The voting system is a bit unique , at least I think it is……..Rather than marking an ‘X’ against their preferred candidate, each voter ranks candidates in order of preference. If a candidate receives a majority of first place votes, he or she is elected. However if no single candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed. The process is repeated until one candidate gets an absolute majority. (Quin maybe able to expand this a bit)
The UK currently operates a simple plurality, first-past-the-post system. In this voting system the single winner is the person with the most votes; there is no requirement that the winner gain an absolute majority of votes.
Uses multi-seat constituencies and transfers votes that would otherwise be wasted to other eligible candidates. STV initially allocates an elector’s vote to his or her most preferred candidate and then, after candidates have been either elected or eliminated, transfers surplus or unused votes according to the voters’ stated preferences. (Thanx to Reuters reporters for some of the facts in this post)
With that said…there is a push for electoral reforms in the UK….the issue is popular as it is in the US?
Labor
– Referendum early in the next parliament on whether to move to the Alternative Vote* system for elections to the House of Commons
– Free vote in parliament on reducing voting age to 16
– Legislation to ensure parliaments sit for a fixed-term
– Commission to chart a course to a written constitution
– Statutory register of lobbyists
– Completion of reform of the House of Lords
– Full implementation of a new system of independent regulation of MPs pay, pensions and allowances.
CONSERVATIVES
– Oppose change to ‘first-past-the-post’ system**
– Reduce the number of MPs by 10 percent to 585 from 650 (The US only has 435 Reps)
– Work to ensure consensus for substantially elected House of Lords
– Give House of Commons more control over own timetable
– Reduce discrepancy between constituency electorate sizes
– Right to kick out MPs found guilty of wrongdoing
– Ensure that legislation on devolved issues that only affects England, or England and Wales, can only be passed with the consent of MPs from England, and where applicable Wales
– Introduce new rules on lobbying
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
– Prefer Single Transferable Vote system***, which would allow them to cut MPs by 150
– Right to vote from age 16
– Fixed-term parliaments
– Replace House of Lords with fully elected second chamber with fewer members
– Introduce written constitution(Wait! There is NO written constitution?)
– Right to sack MPs who have broken the rules
– Curb influence of lobbyists
Alternative vote
This will make the Brit system of electing a PM as clear as mud for most, but I think that what effects one country may ultimately show up in others and that includes the US……once again I apologize of my UK readers if I screwed up any of this…..I look forward to hearing from them….
Wee-eell… good post but not quite right in places….
First of all, under the UK system we are NOT electing a Prime Minister – we don’t do that, EVER – that happens as a by-product – we are electing the GOVERNMENT – all of it – and who leads that government (becomes PM) will be the leader of the winning party and was the SELECTION of that winning party (if there is one!).
Of course, the parties to which the various candidates belong is what most people are voting for (or against), but we do not directly elect a Prime Minister (although that effectively happens – for a time at least). It is NOT presidential style election – it’s utterly different.
That party CAN change its mind and select a different leader at any time later on – so who is actually Prime Minister a bit down the line has often ONLY ever been voted on is HIS or HER constituency as and MP, not PM! Good, eh?
The CABINET is selected by the Prime Minister from the elected members of his party (or others if coalition has been necessary) and they run the decision making and they all rely on an OVERALL MAJORITY of supporting MPs in the House to get legislation through and (normally) after open discussion in Parliament, party members will vote with the government – agree or not!
Secondly, we do NOT have the voting system you quote – it is a single vote for the CANDIDATE IN YOUR AREA! If that candidate gets the highest number of the votes cast for all the candidates in the area (constituency) then that candidate is the elected representative for THAT area in Parliament – he/she becomes an MP.
If a party ends up with the highest number of elected MPs in the House of Commons as a whole, then they will attempt to form a government – they basically have the right (although you’re absolutely right – we don’t have a written constitution!). If the party with they largest number of MPs has an overall majority – more MPs than ALL the other parties put together – then the process of forming a government is fairly simple – although it’s important that a winner has a good SIZEABLE majority or even individual maverick MPs can hold the whole government to ransom over single issues and all sorts of things – the tail wagging the dog, if you like.
If there is no winner with an overall majority (as looks wuite possible this time) then two or more parties will try to cooperate to foem and EFFECTIVE overall majority. That would be the largest party and some others – if they can’t or won’t manage it, then smaller parties will try to form coalitions and so on until (hopefully) someone gets something off the ground.
Parties cooperating in coalition with (for instance) the largest party to form a government will usually demand seats in the Cabinet and often make certain issues a condition of assistance.
In the UK and when it works out as intended, the WHOLE WINNING PARTY is the government and the CABINET is the inner circle of decision makers. The CABINET CAN (and often does) contain some NON ELECTED members!
The UK does NOT have Proportional Representation in ANY SHAPE or FORM, but the LIbDems would like it because they ahve few ares where they have a majority although there is a sizeable amount of support spread aout all over the place.
I’m not sure about the voting in Scotland and Wales, but he only part of the UK that has any form of PR is Northern Ireland, but that is for their LOCAL ASSEMBLIES – NOT for the central UK main elections!
That’s my take, but I’m sure I’ve got something wrong – just as I’m sure it’s all as clear as mud to US citizens such as yourself. 😆
Sorry about all the typos above, but I think it’s understandable. Just an addition – because each MP is only elected in his or her area (constituency) and there may well be lots of candidates for that area – sometimes ten or more – if the situation is as now, or there are local issues – then that MP could easily be elected with a derisory proportion of the vote.
To put it another way, if a winner gets 8000 votes, there could (theoretically) be three or four others opposing who got 7999 and half a dozen others with smaller amounts, but the 8000 still wins! They win by “A” majority, frequently not “THE” majority – first past the post.
You can easily have the situation where an MP is elected with only 20% or so of the AVAILABLE vote (a lot of people don’t vote at all anyway) or even less – which means that 80% of people in that constituency DIDN’T vote for him/her!
But then Representative Government of ANY form is just a load of unrepresentative crap anyway… 😈
Thanx for the excellent comment….and it looks like I need to study the system a bit more……..a couple of questions about the reforms……UK does not have a written constitution? And are the House of Lords elected or appointed? How are the MPs picked….by city or county or population? Sorry, if those have been answered but you are right….clear as mud…..LOL
A side note…..this is a long letter but it shows that some Repubs are not morons…
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/americandad/2010/03/an-open-letter-to-conservative.php
I think you would appreciate it…it is a pretty good read, IMO….
No, the constituion, such as it is, has been formed in law over centuries by the (supposedly) learned and independent judiciary. I must say that the judiciary does tend in the UK to jealously guard its independence and can frequently be relied upon to remind politicians that they are not gods, whatever they believe.
The House of Lords is a mixture – part selected by means of the creation of “life peers” by the ruling party, partly by hereditary peers and partly it is intended to make it elected. The house of Lords cannot block legislation indefinitely, but it can make life very difficult for daft, partisan politicians when they get too silly. Actually, the House of Lords is often pretty good at what it does and the professional politicians mostly hate it because it all too frequently points out just how fucking stupid they really are!
The size of constituencies varies – rural ones tend to be larger whilst a city like London has I think thirty or so – maybe more. Confusing I know, but there’s not much point having a whole constituency with one farmer living in it, or trying to lump Mayfair in with Brixton (both dirsticts of London, but pretty much at the opposite ends of the financial spectrum).
The letter you linked – absolutely superb and I agree 100%. If any of these people (in both our countries) were capable of recognising their own shortcomings and just how pathetic they are, then we might have a different system entirely…
It’s like I said recently – politics for politics’ sake and bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake – utterly useless!
I thought you would appreciate the letter….the guy made excellent points….I try to get it out to everyone……..
Do the UK really have over 600 MPs? I thought we had too damn many!
The whole two houses seems like a waste to me….and I mean in both countries…….there has got to be a pretty way…..
I am just about finished with my c-op government post….soon my friend….
Personally, except that I can’t quite bring myself to renounce democracy, at the moment I’d say do away with the normal House of Commons altogether in the UK and just keep the Lords – at least they use a bit of common sense at times, which is something sadly lacking in Parliament.
At least it would save a few quid, eh? 😈
Saving taxpayers money is always a great idea……here it would be the Senate to get rid of….they spin more time doing nothing and still draw a paycheck for decades……..at least the House of Reps works…not all the time….but they still draw a paycheck….these guys have a good time on the public’s dime….
This is why I’m always in favour of the public keeping its own dime to have its own good time with!
PS: Do you ever check your emails? 🙄
I usually check them once a day….I already have a hard on so I do not need to read about Viagra…..lol…..sorry about that…..I do not get much good email so once a day was okay….but I will try to do better……BTW thanx for the info about the UK system….
No problem. If you’re going to start using Twitter (and you haven’t perhaps considered this), which is often more immediate and assuming your computer/laptop is always connected to the internet, which most are, then you might want to consider putting that email address into Outlook or Outlook Express or whatever other email client you have and leaving that open and minimized so it checks every ten minutes (or whatever you set it at) for new messages…
Or you can just create a new Gmail address and put their notifier in your “tray” and it bleeps at you.
All those clients have quite good junk mail filters that should be able to remove most of the viagra offers – as well as those that suggest you need to acquire a dick the size of Empire State Building.
Just a thought. 🙂
Something to consider….but first, I need to remember my password and then learn to use the damn thing….lol
5m per year in wages and similar to the ￡2m Tony Pulis received for avoiding relegation with Palace in 2014 Allardyce will net a seven figure bonus should he avoid the drop.