VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345[6]78910 ]
Subject: Really?


Author:
Ed Harris (Venezia)
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 22:23:20 12/01/04 Wed
In reply to: Dave (UK) 's message, "well..." on 21:48:54 12/01/04 Wed

I always thought that the second greatest thing about FPTP is that it totally prevents the loony minority parties from getting anywhere. BNP and the Communists stand no chance in FPTP, but under PR they'd be in Parliament! Like in France, where there are actually Communist and National Front representatives.

Diversity is one thing, but PR allowed NASDAP to get a foot in the door in Germany, and we all know what that led to. Okay, so you could have a minimum cut-off point, say, 10%, but that's arbitrary and not really a lasting solution: mainly because a party which gets 9.9% of the vote has no seats but a party which gets 10% of the vote gets 10% of the seats - as soon as that happens, the system seems ridiculous and you have to start the whole reform process of again.

I'm a great believer in our system. It worked fine until a certain party started to horse around with it, which opened a whole can of worms, largely because if you partially reform something it makes no sense, and so there are immediate calls reform it completely. Mr Blair, having read Machiavelli, knows this well, and cunningly came up with this solution so that it would appear as though public opinion was driving the changes. On the contrary, until he deliberately imposed a crap partial-reform compromise almost everyone was happy with the system apart from a few intellectuals who don't like anything which is 100% rational.

The British constitution was a triumph over logic of the organic. I believe that Aristotle called it catalaxy.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes but...


Author:
Dave (UK)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 22:31:24 12/01/04 Wed

You cannot claim to be a mature true democracy, if you design a political system to prevent views being aired that you find distasteful.

Mature democracies can stomach these parties, just as mature democracies don't tend to have them in the first place.

It is this Government and its ppolicies that have created the surge of the BNP

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Fair point. I stand corrected.


Author:
Ed Harris (Venezia)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 22:33:43 12/01/04 Wed


[ Post a Reply to This Message ]


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.