No it doesn't. People vote for a constituency representative, usually because the candidate is their favoured political Party choice. It follows therefore that only a government formed by a Party receiving a majority of the votes would be democratic. Anything less is not the will of the people, but a virtual record of their wishes - and incidentally, also clearly 'unfair' when using your preferred system, if 5% of the wishes of the electorate are ignored - even if it is more practical.
Inevitably, no government will command 100% approval or support - but if they have more than 50%, then that is the democratic reflection of the will of the people.
No electoral system or structure is perfect. They all have their advantages and disadvantages.
Both FPTP and PR can claim to be democratic.
But PR is definitely more democratic than FPTP, because PR, reflects the proportionally of the parties that the voters voted for, in the proportionally of the parties in the parliament.
To yourself, clearly - but , also clearly, not to me. I would not object to this becoming a referendum issue however, and although I don't believe that any form of PR is truly democratic, if the electoral procedure was changed to a PR system as a result of a referendum, that in itself would be a democratic action.
You would only get a majority in each constituency. You would be unlikely to get a majority of actual votes in the country for any one party. That's where your system falls down.
iIf the constituency boundaries were redrawn to reflect a fairer electoral basis, an overall majority of votes for the winning Party is more likely to occur than not - but in any event, at least the constituency results would be democratically based, and the resultant government would be no worse off in the democratic stakes than any post war government, which have all been elected despite having less than 50% of the votes cast.
No electoral system or structure is perfect. They all have their advantages and disadvantages.
Both FPTP and PR can claim to be democratic.
But PR is definitely more democratic than FPTP, because PR, reflects the proportionally of the parties that the voters voted for, in the proportionally of the parties in the parliament.
FPTP many votes don't count towards a result.
PR most votes do count towards a result.
Undoubtedly - and I understand that , just like the UK, not all democracies operate on the 'majority' rule - but the word democracy is synonymous with ' majority'.
iIf the constituency boundaries were redrawn to reflect a fairer electoral basis, an overall majority of votes for the winning Party is more likely to occur than not .
Overstated.
Regardless of boundary sizes, FPTP has two current flaws both of which suit the Labour party.
Turnout in safe Labour seats is generally lower. At the May 2010 GE, in Labour's 10 safest seats, turnout was between 49% to 57%. In the Conservatives' 10 safest seats, turnout was 64% to 74%. So Labour MPs are winning with fewer votes - because fewer people bother to cast their vote.
And in marginal seats, Labour win with smaller margins. And you only need one more vote than the runner up to secure the seat. Regardless of turnout.
PR addresses this problem. By having party parliamentary strengths based on a national vote, then everyone's vote counts towards a national total. So if Labour voters chose to stay home, well that's votes lost for the Labour's national total.
Regardless of boundary sizes, FPTP has two current flaws both of which suit the Labour party.
Turnout in safe Labour seats is generally lower. At the May 2010 GE, in Labour's 10 safest seats, turnout was between 49% to 57%. In the Conservatives' 10 safest seats, turnout was 64% to 74%. So Labour MPs are winning with fewer votes - because fewer people bother to cast their vote.
And in marginal seats, Labour win with smaller margins. And you only need one more vote than the runner up to secure the seat. Regardless of turnout.
PR addresses this problem. By having party parliamentary strengths based on a national vote, then everyone's vote counts towards a national total. So if Labour voters chose to stay home, well that's votes lost for the Labour's national total.
How can the making of constituency boundaries fairer be 'overstated'?
I have no problem with safe seats, if this truly reflects the majority view of the constituents, as unlike PR, it better reflects the truly democratic result.
Even some 'safe ' seats could be surprise results if the electoral system reduced it to two candidates in a final head to head.
And in marginal seats, Labour win with smaller margins. And you only need one more vote than the runner up to secure the seat. Regardless of turnout.voters
2010 UK General Election
Out of the top ten most marginal seats
4 Conservative 4 Labour 1 LibDem 1 Sinn Fein
Out of the top twenty most marginal seats
9 Conservative 7 Labour 3 LibDem 1 Sinn Fein
Out of the top thirty most marginal seats
13 Conservative 12 Labour 4 LibDem 1 Sinn Fein
Out of the top forty most marginal seats
17 Conservative 17 Labour 5 LibDem 1 Sinn Fein
Out of the top fifty most marginal seats
23 Conservative 19 Labour 1 Labour Co-op 1 Sinn Fein 1 DUP 1 Green
2010 UK General Election
Out of the top ten most marginal seats
4 Conservative 4 Labour 1 LibDem 1 Sinn Fein
Out of the top twenty most marginal seats
9 Conservative 7 Labour 3 LibDem 1 Sinn Fein
Out of the top thirty most marginal seats
13 Conservative 12 Labour 4 LibDem 1 Sinn Fein
Out of the top forty most marginal seats
17 Conservative 17 Labour 5 LibDem 1 Sinn Fein
Out of the top fifty most marginal seats
23 Conservative 19 Labour 1 Labour Co-op 1 Sinn Fein 1 DUP 1 Green
That corrects my earlier comment about marginal Labour seats.
How can the making of constituency boundaries fairer be 'overstated'?
I have no problem with safe seats, if this truly reflects the majority view of the constituents, as unlike PR, it better reflects the truly democratic result.
I do.
Turnout in safe seats can be lower - especially in Labour ones, because the result is easier to predict.
FPTP is winner take all. If you vote for a losing candidate, your vote is wasted.
PR means that everybody's vote count towards the total when determining each party's representation in parliament. Unless you vote for a party which doesn't get any seats.
And I don't - it that is a true reflection of the majority of constituents.
Turnout in safe seats can be lower - especially in Labour ones, because the result is easier to predict.
Irrelevant - people are entitled to not register their vote, for whatever reason.
FPTP is winner take all. If you vote for a losing candidate, your vote is wasted.
So what? Many people get a government that they don't want either. In a democracy, or any other form of government, not everyone can win - not even with a PR voting system.
PR means that everybody's vote count towards the total when determining each party's representation in parliament. Unless you vote for a party which doesn't get any seats.
I repeat - democracy is synonamous with majority - not a record of the spread of votes.
They have this system in France for National Assembly parliamentary elections.
That corrects my earlier comment about marginal Labour seats.
A few months ago, Lord Ashcroft conducted a poll on 26 marginal seats, and his prediction, based on this sample survey, was that Labour would win the next election - despite Ed Miliband.
I like the direct link between MP and constituency.
You can still have it with PR. Here in Wales under the d'Hondt method of PR I have a local Assembly Member for my constituency, as well as four AMs representing my region of Wales.
Turnout in safe seats can be lower - especially in Labour ones, because the result is easier to predict.
FPTP is winner take all. If you vote for a losing candidate, your vote is wasted.
PR means that everybody's vote count towards the total when determining each party's representation in parliament. Unless you vote for a party which doesn't get any seats.
They have this system in France for National Assembly parliamentary elections.
Yes, when they realised how flimsy and wishy-washy PR was.
And... One of the advantages of PR is that the voters who failed to elect their preferred local constituency MP (and within the FPTP plurality system those voters are often a majority) have the opportunity to elect their preferred party on the second vote, and therefore have a second opportunity to elect their preferred party representative.
Under FPTP, those voters who fail to elect their preferred local candidate, although represented by a MP, will generally have political polices that are different or contrary to their MP and his party. They have no second chance, to elect a representative, whose polices are aligned with their polices.
Comments
Following that logic, nobody's vote counts, there's no point in anybody voting and we can dispense with elections.
Hmm, perhaps I should have included a <sarcasm> tag.
No electoral system or structure is perfect. They all have their advantages and disadvantages.
Both FPTP and PR can claim to be democratic.
But PR is definitely more democratic than FPTP, because PR, reflects the proportionally of the parties that the voters voted for, in the proportionally of the parties in the parliament.
FPTP many votes don't count towards a result.
PR most votes do count towards a result.
To yourself, clearly - but , also clearly, not to me. I would not object to this becoming a referendum issue however, and although I don't believe that any form of PR is truly democratic, if the electoral procedure was changed to a PR system as a result of a referendum, that in itself would be a democratic action. iIf the constituency boundaries were redrawn to reflect a fairer electoral basis, an overall majority of votes for the winning Party is more likely to occur than not - but in any event, at least the constituency results would be democratically based, and the resultant government would be no worse off in the democratic stakes than any post war government, which have all been elected despite having less than 50% of the votes cast.
Overstated.
Regardless of boundary sizes, FPTP has two current flaws both of which suit the Labour party.
Turnout in safe Labour seats is generally lower. At the May 2010 GE, in Labour's 10 safest seats, turnout was between 49% to 57%. In the Conservatives' 10 safest seats, turnout was 64% to 74%. So Labour MPs are winning with fewer votes - because fewer people bother to cast their vote.
And in marginal seats, Labour win with smaller margins. And you only need one more vote than the runner up to secure the seat. Regardless of turnout.
PR addresses this problem. By having party parliamentary strengths based on a national vote, then everyone's vote counts towards a national total. So if Labour voters chose to stay home, well that's votes lost for the Labour's national total.
I have no problem with safe seats, if this truly reflects the majority view of the constituents, as unlike PR, it better reflects the truly democratic result.
Even some 'safe ' seats could be surprise results if the electoral system reduced it to two candidates in a final head to head.
Out of the top ten most marginal seats
4 Conservative 4 Labour 1 LibDem 1 Sinn Fein
Out of the top twenty most marginal seats
9 Conservative 7 Labour 3 LibDem 1 Sinn Fein
Out of the top thirty most marginal seats
13 Conservative 12 Labour 4 LibDem 1 Sinn Fein
Out of the top forty most marginal seats
17 Conservative 17 Labour 5 LibDem 1 Sinn Fein
Out of the top fifty most marginal seats
23 Conservative 19 Labour 1 Labour Co-op 1 Sinn Fein 1 DUP 1 Green
That corrects my earlier comment about marginal Labour seats.
Whoops.
I do.
Turnout in safe seats can be lower - especially in Labour ones, because the result is easier to predict.
FPTP is winner take all. If you vote for a losing candidate, your vote is wasted.
PR means that everybody's vote count towards the total when determining each party's representation in parliament. Unless you vote for a party which doesn't get any seats.
They have this system in France for National Assembly parliamentary elections.
A few months ago, Lord Ashcroft conducted a poll on 26 marginal seats, and his prediction, based on this sample survey, was that Labour would win the next election - despite Ed Miliband.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/05/conservative-labour-battleground/
I like the direct link between MP and constituency.
You can still have it with PR. Here in Wales under the d'Hondt method of PR I have a local Assembly Member for my constituency, as well as four AMs representing my region of Wales.
First vote
40 local constitunency MPs elected by FPTP
Second vote
20 regional MPs (4 per region) elected by PR by region using D'hondt method and counting the FPTP MPs already elected.
http://www.assemblywales.org/abthome/role-of-assembly-how-it-works/abt-assembly-elections-2/abt-nafw-how-assembly-elected.htm
With PR, democracy is synonymous with majority.
With FPTP, democracy is synonymous with plurality.
Yes, when they realised how flimsy and wishy-washy PR was.
And... One of the advantages of PR is that the voters who failed to elect their preferred local constituency MP (and within the FPTP plurality system those voters are often a majority) have the opportunity to elect their preferred party on the second vote, and therefore have a second opportunity to elect their preferred party representative.
Under FPTP, those voters who fail to elect their preferred local candidate, although represented by a MP, will generally have political polices that are different or contrary to their MP and his party. They have no second chance, to elect a representative, whose polices are aligned with their polices.
??? That doesn't seem to make sense.