Elections in Britain - is it fair?
After the 2005 election this was the result:
Party
UK share of vote
Share of seats in the House of Commons
Labour
35.3%
55%
Conservative
32.3%
30.7%
Liberal Democrats
22.1%
9.6%
T
The Labour party only got 35,3% of the total votes in the UK. This means that 64,7% of the voters didn’t vote for the Labour party and still they got majority rule in the House of Commons. This is possible in Great Britain because the voters elect one representative from their constituencies. The representative represent his ore here constituencies in The house of commons. The house of commons is almost like the Norwegian Stortinge. They are both their countries budgetary and legislative assembly.
The elected representatives are called Members of Parliament (MPs). When the constituencies elect there Mp the winner takes it all. The votes which the losing parties may get are turn down. That’s why it is possible for parties in Great Britain to get many votes and still get little influence in The House of Commons. Because of the huge difference between the parties’ votes in the national scale and their influence in the House of Commons some people think that Great Britain is undemocratic.
A way to make Great Britain more democratic can be to induce direct democracy. Another solution can be to exchange the voting system with constituencies to one national voting system. However, then it is more likely that the power would be divided onto more parties and it is also likely that parties would be forced to form a coalition government. It is harder for a coalition government to form a clear policy.
There are certainly dilemmas about which is the best system here and as you argue there are positive things to be said about either. It is always very difficult to change a system and one tends to view it undemocratic if the party you hope for gets few seats as the conservatives did in the last election. Will be exciting to see what happens next time. I think they will win!
SvarSlettAnn: Let's hope not, shall we? And changing the electoral system isn't that difficult - the Labour Party has considered supporting a proportional system when they thought they would gain power from it (although it's hard to imagine the advantages for them). It's also interesting that the devolved bodies in the UK are exclusively proportional. I think NZ changed from single-member plurality to a proportional system.
SvarSlettMikkel: Nice post, but it could use some work with spellchecking and grammarproofing. Especially there/their. And paragraphs! As for the content: Direct democracy does not seem like much of an option, but please elaborate on it. There are different forms of proportional systems too - it can have several constituencies, like Norway, and that would be probably be the best version of it for the UK.
By the way: There has not been a government in the UK with a plurality of the votes since 1935. Yet, their governments tend to be very stable. It would be nice if you could write a bit on the advantages of first-past-the-post (Yes, they do exist).
Thanks for the comment Magnus, It is very inspiring with some feedback! It really helps me to see thinks from other perspectives. I agree that other forms of proportional systems are a much better alternative. I mention direct democracy mostly to show an example quite different from the system in the UK.
SvarSlettYea, I should have mentioned some of the advantages of first-past-the-post. It creates a strong government, in contrast to our coalition government, who I sometimes find a little weak.
Thanks for the grammar tips also. I struggle with that part, but I will work on it this semester. Feel free to comment on new blog posts =) Thanks