The meaningful consequence of fielding too few candidates is that a lot of second-tier far-left candidates will get elected, often people connected to the UK SWP.
Looking at the way the Irish election is panning out, Sinn Fein seem likely now to comfortably win the highest first preference vote, yet end up only with the third highest number of seats of the 3 main parties. With lots of dealings in smoke filled rooms to follow.
It isn't the best advert for PR in terms of either proportionality or transparency.
That, rather like the comment about liberal intolerance, is nonsense.
A Party choosing not to stand enough candidates is going to suffer under FPTP, STV or any system other than direct proportionality but not even Ireland has gone that far.
Of course, under FPTP, winning the most votes doesn't guarantee winning the most seats.
There's no such thing as a perfect electoral system.
They all have their different mix of advantages and disadvantages.
The debate is really about which mix of those to choose.
Biden: "“I’ve lost a lot in my life,” he said, referencing not just Beau but the wife and daughter who died in a car crash shortly after that first Senate win. “I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand by and lose my country too.”
In all seriousness. Respect to Biden for even surviving, emotionally, after that.
I wonder if this is why he is so creepily touchy-feelly?
Seriously. If I had lost family in that tragic way I might also want to sniff the hair of children: you are trying to recapture the lost child.
All parents know this. When your kids are really young you just smell them, and (when washed) they smell GOOD. The product of your genes: another, better, younger version of you, that will live on. It's an entirely animal but instinctive thing to do.
Ah, poor bastard.
It's a terrible backstory, which I didn't appreciate. My heart goes out to him.
Looking at the way the Irish election is panning out, Sinn Fein seem likely now to comfortably win the highest first preference vote, yet end up only with the third highest number of seats of the 3 main parties. With lots of dealings in smoke filled rooms to follow.
It isn't the best advert for PR in terms of either proportionality or transparency.
That, rather like the comment about liberal intolerance, is nonsense.
A Party choosing not to stand enough candidates is going to suffer under FPTP, STV or any system other than direct proportionality but not even Ireland has gone that far.
Of course, under FPTP, winning the most votes doesn't guarantee winning the most seats.
No, a system making parties try and second guess how they will do in an election in order to decide whether to stand one, two or three candidates in order to elect the maximum number possible is nonsense.
I am not necessarily damning all forms of PR - some are better than others. What I don't like is the way it works in Ireland.
Varadkar stands in the constituency of Dublin West. It returns 4 TD's (Teachtaí Dála, their equivalent of Members of Parliament). Under STV vote counting goes thru several rounds, with the lowest votes being reassigned on each round. According to Wiki it's currently on count 3 and so far only one TD has been assigned (Sinn Féin's Paul Donnelly). So there's a while to go yet. Varadkar came second in terms of first preferences and given that I'll be surprised if he isn't elected.
He's just failed on the third count.
Getting in only on the fourth or more must be a bruise to the ego.
Looking at the way the Irish election is panning out, Sinn Fein seem likely now to comfortably win the highest first preference vote, yet end up only with the third highest number of seats of the 3 main parties. With lots of dealings in smoke filled rooms to follow.
It isn't the best advert for PR in terms of either proportionality or transparency.
That, rather like the comment about liberal intolerance, is nonsense.
A Party choosing not to stand enough candidates is going to suffer under FPTP, STV or any system other than direct proportionality but not even Ireland has gone that far.
Of course, under FPTP, winning the most votes doesn't guarantee winning the most seats.
Any system can penalise parties for not standing candidates that could attract support. Under FPTP though the only reason for not standing candidates would be resourcing - and beyond potential lost deposits there is no reason not to stand them on paper. Any party aspiring to national government would expect to field a full slate as a matter of course. The difference in Ireland is that the system itself can actually penalise a party for standing too many candidates. Which is just wrong IMO.
Looking at the way the Irish election is panning out, Sinn Fein seem likely now to comfortably win the highest first preference vote, yet end up only with the third highest number of seats of the 3 main parties. With lots of dealings in smoke filled rooms to follow.
It isn't the best advert for PR in terms of either proportionality or transparency.
That, rather like the comment about liberal intolerance, is nonsense.
A Party choosing not to stand enough candidates is going to suffer under FPTP, STV or any system other than direct proportionality but not even Ireland has gone that far.
Of course, under FPTP, winning the most votes doesn't guarantee winning the most seats.
No, a system making parties try and second guess how they will do in an election in order to decide whether to stand one, two or three candidates in order to elect the maximum number possible is nonsense.
I am not necessarily damning all forms of PR - some are better than others. What I don't like is the way it works in Ireland.
They had the option to stand just as many candidates as last time, and they would have done exceptionally well. It is their own fault for risk-aversion. And, of course, in some cases, the damned voters would not have elected a second candidate anyway because internal transfer rates are usually below 75%. Think of the FPTP equivalent as being a world where the Conservatives had looked at their mid-2019 election results and chosen to spend their resources on 250 core seats at risk to the Lib Dems or Brexit Party.
Biden: "“I’ve lost a lot in my life,” he said, referencing not just Beau but the wife and daughter who died in a car crash shortly after that first Senate win. “I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand by and lose my country too.”
Jesus. Did he really lose his wife and kid in a crash? Fuck. Suddenly have a lot more sympathy for the guy.
Awful
Kelsey Grammer's sister was brutally murdered. Bob Monkhouse's son died of a heroin overdose. Ronnie Barker's son was a paedophile. Claudia Winkleman's daughter nearly burned to death. David Cameron buried a six-year-old son. People have lives away and outside of their public personas, and it's surprising - and saddening - what people go thru without us knowing about it.
Will a SF government be a better negotiating partner for Britain over Brexit? Asking for an entire home nation.
They will want the backstop to come into effect, so odds are they would veto any trading deal that negated it. But I don’t see them forming a government on current numbers.
Varadkar stands in the constituency of Dublin West. It returns 4 TD's (Teachtaí Dála, their equivalent of Members of Parliament). Under STV vote counting goes thru several rounds, with the lowest votes being reassigned on each round. According to Wiki it's currently on count 3 and so far only one TD has been assigned (Sinn Féin's Paul Donnelly). So there's a while to go yet. Varadkar came second in terms of first preferences and given that I'll be surprised if he isn't elected.
He's just failed on the third count.
Getting in only on the fourth or more must be a bruise to the ego.
I can't help thinking that right now, it's the least of his problems...
Looking at the way the Irish election is panning out, Sinn Fein seem likely now to comfortably win the highest first preference vote, yet end up only with the third highest number of seats of the 3 main parties. With lots of dealings in smoke filled rooms to follow.
It isn't the best advert for PR in terms of either proportionality or transparency.
That, rather like the comment about liberal intolerance, is nonsense.
A Party choosing not to stand enough candidates is going to suffer under FPTP, STV or any system other than direct proportionality but not even Ireland has gone that far.
Of course, under FPTP, winning the most votes doesn't guarantee winning the most seats.
Any system can penalise parties for not standing candidates that could attract support. Under FPTP though the only reason for not standing candidates would be resourcing - and beyond potential lost deposits there is no reason not to stand them on paper. Any party aspiring to national government would expect to field a full slate as a matter of course. The difference in Ireland is that the system itself can actually penalise a party for standing too many candidates. Which is just wrong IMO.
The system doesn't penalise a party - the voters do. If a party loses due to too many candidates, it is because voters have a preference set that is not strictly partisan. In other words, the parties are trying to gain by limiting the option set available to voters. It's good if this behaviour is punished. Think of the power Boris Johnson gains when he can force Remain voters to choose between a Brexiter or a Corbynite, or vice versa for committed Labour Leavers.
There's no such thing as a perfect electoral system.
They all have their different mix of advantages and disadvantages.
The debate is really about which mix of those to choose.
Quite. I'm no fan of FPTP but accept other systems (notably AV) have their issues.
STV is better than many but it's not perfect.
My personal preference is direct proportionality - you get 20% of the vote, you get 20% of the seats.
The only real difference in political cultures between proportional and "winner takes all" systems is in the former you get a bloc of parties working together on the "centre right" and similar on the "centre left" and power oscillates between each grouping. In the WTA systems, there are single parties which encompass the bloc so the Conservative Party is, by its own definition, a broad church encompassing a range of centre-right opinion. It is its own bloc.
Nothing is destroyed by the destruction of the United Kingdom, so let's not exaggerate. You might just as well call it the creation of a United Ireland and an independent Scotland.
It is worth remembering at this juncture that maintaining a political union with Scotland and Northern Ireland alike requires a very considerable yearly outlay of English taxpayers' money to places where much of the population feels h a fashion is to make it a structure that is equitable and addresses the needs and concerns of all its members. So if it's going to die why not just let it?
HA HA HA, the old chestnut that the English subsidise Scotland rather than the reality of it being the other way round. Get a backbone and have an independence referendum rather than whine constantly.
Good chance it will happen in Autumn 2021 Malc, but the union will win
It won't happen while Boris is PM as the Tory manifesto made clear the 2014 referendum was 'once in a generation'
It will in the circumstances Scots opinion demands it post Holyrood 2021
On this subject you are running the very real risk of being wrong
I am not as it needs Westminster approval as was the case in 2014 and Westminster now has a Tory majority elected on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2
Things change - politics change - you can parrot your line as much as you want but it will change if the SNP win a majority in 2021. Your attitude just hastens independence and angers moderates including supporters of the union like my family as you demonstrate all that is wrong with some English attitudes to the Scots
And HYUFD is assuming Boris is going to keep his promises.
You will lose this argument if 2021 goes the SNP way
Actually even most Scots oppose indyref2 for at least 5 years, regardless of whether the SNP win next year's Holyrood election
Biden: "“I’ve lost a lot in my life,” he said, referencing not just Beau but the wife and daughter who died in a car crash shortly after that first Senate win. “I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand by and lose my country too.”
In all seriousness. Respect to Biden for even surviving, emotionally, after that.
I wonder if this is why he is so creepily touchy-feelly?
Seriously. If I had lost family in that tragic way I might also want to sniff the hair of children: you are trying to recapture the lost child.
All parents know this. When your kids are really young you just smell them, and (when washed) they smell GOOD. The product of your genes: another, better, younger version of you, that will live on. It's an entirely animal but instinctive thing to do.
Varadkar stands in the constituency of Dublin West. It returns 4 TD's (Teachtaí Dála, their equivalent of Members of Parliament). Under STV vote counting goes thru several rounds, with the lowest votes being reassigned on each round. According to Wiki it's currently on count 3 and so far only one TD has been assigned (Sinn Féin's Paul Donnelly). So there's a while to go yet. Varadkar came second in terms of first preferences and given that I'll be surprised if he isn't elected.
He's just failed on the third count.
Getting in only on the fourth or more must be a bruise to the ego.
After Bercow's statement earlier today, I'm all out of tiny violins.
All it would take would be for Nicola Sturgeon to resign as FM and then the Greens to help the SNP out by not letting Holyrood appoint a new one for 28 days.
'All'? That's a small word for an unprecedented move that depends on the accommodation of at least 2 parties and several individuals, including BJ actually permitting a referendum. I'm also pretty sure such tricksiness would be used by Unionists to delegitimise any subsequent referendum.
Nothing is destroyed by the destruction of the United Kingdom, so let's not exaggerate. You might just as well call it the creation of a United Ireland and an independent Scotland.
It is worth remembering at this juncture that maintaining a political union with Scotland and Northern Ireland alike requires a very considerable yearly outlay of English taxpayers' money to places where much of the population feels h a fashion is to make it a structure that is equitable and addresses the needs and concerns of all its members. So if it's going to die why not just let it?
HA HA HA, the old chestnut that the English subsidise Scotland rather than the reality of it being the other way round. Get a backbone and have an independence referendum rather than whine constantly.
Good chance it will happen in Autumn 2021 Malc, but the union will win
It won't happen while Boris is PM as the Tory manifesto made clear the 2014 referendum was 'once in a generation'
It will in the circumstances Scots opinion demands it post Holyrood 2021
On this subject you are running the very real risk of being wrong
I am not as it needs Westminster approval as was the case in 2014 and Westminster now has a Tory majority elected on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2
Things change - politics change - you can parrot Scots
And HYUFD is assuming Boris is going to keep his promises.
You will lose this argument if 2021 goes the SNP way
Actually even most Scots oppose indyref2 for at least 5 years, regardless of whether the SNP win next year's Holyrood election
For Fucks Sake the Tweet Says Within 5 years. The Tweet you are actually posting says WITHIN.
WITHIN.
WITHIN.
By 46% to 41% Scots oppose indyref2 even if the SNP win a majority at Holyrood next year
They do, however, support one within the next 5 years by 44% to 39%.
The next UK general election will be held within 4 and a half years so Boris can correctly refuse indyref2 for the rest of his term with the support of most Scots
There's no such thing as a perfect electoral system.
They all have their different mix of advantages and disadvantages.
The debate is really about which mix of those to choose.
Quite. I'm no fan of FPTP but accept other systems (notably AV) have their issues.
STV is better than many but it's not perfect.
My personal preference is direct proportionality - you get 20% of the vote, you get 20% of the seats.
The only real difference in political cultures between proportional and "winner takes all" systems is in the former you get a bloc of parties working together on the "centre right" and similar on the "centre left" and power oscillates between each grouping. In the WTA systems, there are single parties which encompass the bloc so the Conservative Party is, by its own definition, a broad church encompassing a range of centre-right opinion. It is its own bloc.
A fair post, and I agree with much of that.
I think quite a few UK PR advocates (not you) seem to think there's some latent centrist coalition they can exorcise from the electorate, if only we had the right electoral system.
Of course, it's nonsense. If we'd had open party list or STV here we'd have had a direct Tory-UKIP coalition government by now, not Chukka Umunna United.
They're really mourning the politics of the mid-late 1990s.
Biden: "“I’ve lost a lot in my life,” he said, referencing not just Beau but the wife and daughter who died in a car crash shortly after that first Senate win. “I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand by and lose my country too.”
Jesus. Did he really lose his wife and kid in a crash? Fuck. Suddenly have a lot more sympathy for the guy.
Awful
Kelsey Grammer's sister was brutally murdered. Bob Monkhouse's son died of a heroin overdose. Ronnie Barker's son was a paedophile. Claudia Winkleman's daughter nearly burned to death. David Cameron buried a six-year-old son. People have lives away and outside of their public personas, and it's surprising - and saddening - what people go thru without us knowing about it.
It is and the idea that 'priviledge' makes that any more easy or less painful is nonsense.
Looking at the way the Irish election is panning out, Sinn Fein seem likely now to comfortably win the highest first preference vote, yet end up only with the third highest number of seats of the 3 main parties. With lots of dealings in smoke filled rooms to follow.
It isn't the best advert for PR in terms of either proportionality or transparency.
That, rather like the comment about liberal intolerance, is nonsense.
A Party choosing not to stand enough candidates is going to suffer under FPTP, STV or any system other than direct proportionality but not even Ireland has gone that far.
Of course, under FPTP, winning the most votes doesn't guarantee winning the most seats.
No, a system making parties try and second guess how they will do in an election in order to decide whether to stand one, two or three candidates in order to elect the maximum number possible is nonsense.
I am not necessarily damning all forms of PR - some are better than others. What I don't like is the way it works in Ireland.
They had the option to stand just as many candidates as last time, and they would have done exceptionally well. It is their own fault for risk-aversion. And, of course, in some cases, the damned voters would not have elected a second candidate anyway because internal transfer rates are usually below 75%. Think of the FPTP equivalent as being a world where the Conservatives had looked at their mid-2019 election results and chosen to spend their resources on 250 core seats at risk to the Lib Dems or Brexit Party.
Standing two candidates you also get a higher proportion of first preferences, because electors have a choice. That's why transfer rates are below 100%.
Looking at the results in so far, Sinn Fein look to me to be on course to win at least 10 seats fewer than they could have, if only they had had the benefit of hindsight.
The composition of the post election government including the successor to Varadkhar (who may yet stay now) could rest on that.
That is not a minor detail.
And with decisions on candidates those decisions have to be taken at the very start of the campaign. In your example of where resources are spent, parties can and do switch resources right up to polling day as polling evidence emerges.
Varadkar stands in the constituency of Dublin West. It returns 4 TD's (Teachtaí Dála, their equivalent of Members of Parliament). Under STV vote counting goes thru several rounds, with the lowest votes being reassigned on each round. According to Wiki it's currently on count 3 and so far only one TD has been assigned (Sinn Féin's Paul Donnelly). So there's a while to go yet. Varadkar came second in terms of first preferences and given that I'll be surprised if he isn't elected.
He's just failed on the third count.
Getting in only on the fourth or more must be a bruise to the ego.
After Bercow's statement earlier today, I'm all out of tiny violins.
Well, technically it was still one party in 1922, and they won 59% of the vote and all but 24 seats.
The minor detail that they were literally about to start a war is irrelevant.
I suppose 1923, when under de Valera’s leadership the rump of Sinn Fein won 44 seats, was their previous high watermark. After the 1926 split they basically became irrelevant.
Biden: "“I’ve lost a lot in my life,” he said, referencing not just Beau but the wife and daughter who died in a car crash shortly after that first Senate win. “I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand by and lose my country too.”
In all seriousness. Respect to Biden for even surviving, emotionally, after that.
I wonder if this is why he is so creepily touchy-feelly?
Seriously. If I had lost family in that tragic way I might also want to sniff the hair of children: you are trying to recapture the lost child.
All parents know this. When your kids are really young you just smell them, and (when washed) they smell GOOD. The product of your genes: another, better, younger version of you, that will live on. It's an entirely animal but instinctive thing to do.
Biden: "“I’ve lost a lot in my life,” he said, referencing not just Beau but the wife and daughter who died in a car crash shortly after that first Senate win. “I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand by and lose my country too.”
Jesus. Did he really lose his wife and kid in a crash? Fuck. Suddenly have a lot more sympathy for the guy.
Awful
Kelsey Grammer's sister was brutally murdered. Bob Monkhouse's son died of a heroin overdose. Ronnie Barker's son was a paedophile. Claudia Winkleman's daughter nearly burned to death. David Cameron buried a six-year-old son. People have lives away and outside of their public personas, and it's surprising - and saddening - what people go thru without us knowing about it.
It is and the idea that 'priviledge' makes that any more easy or less painful is nonsense.
Indeed. Wealthy or privileged people may have fewer problems, but fewer is not the same as none. Life is not easy and can be heartbreaking, and that applies to everybody.
Looking at the way the Irish election is panning out, Sinn Fein seem likely now to comfortably win the highest first preference vote, yet end up only with the third highest number of seats of the 3 main parties. With lots of dealings in smoke filled rooms to follow.
It isn't the best advert for PR in terms of either proportionality or transparency.
That, rather like the comment about liberal intolerance, is nonsense.
A Party choosing not to stand enough candidates is going to suffer under FPTP, STV or any system other than direct proportionality but not even Ireland has gone that far.
Of course, under FPTP, winning the most votes doesn't guarantee winning the most seats.
No, a system making parties try and second guess how they will do in an election in order to decide whether to stand one, two or three candidates in order to elect the maximum number possible is nonsense.
I am not necessarily damning all forms of PR - some are better than others. What I don't like is the way it works in Ireland.
They had the option to stand just as many candidates as last time, and they would have done exceptionally well. It is their own fault for risk-aversion. And, of course, in some cases, the damned voters would not have elected a second candidate anyway because internal transfer rates are usually below 75%. Think of the FPTP equivalent as being a world where the Conservatives had looked at their mid-2019 election results and chosen to spend their resources on 250 core seats at risk to the Lib Dems or Brexit Party.
Standing two candidates you also get a higher proportion of first preferences, because electors have a choice. That's why transfer rates are below 100%.
Looking at the results in so far, Sinn Fein look to me to be on course to win at least 10 seats fewer than they could have, if only they had had the benefit of hindsight.
The composition of the post election government including the successor to Varadkhar (who may yet stay now) could rest on that.
That is not a minor detail.
And with decisions on candidates those decisions have to be taken at the very start of the campaign. In your example of where resources are spent, parties can and do switch resources right up to polling day as polling evidence emerges.
All those 10 non-SF seats are going to be won by people receiving the second preferences of SF voters, by definition. It was SF's business if they wanted to throw those seats away, in the interests of protecting their incumbents from intra-party challengers.
Well, technically it was still one party in 1922, and they won 59% of the vote and all but 24 seats.
The minor detail that they were literally about to start a war is irrelevant.
I suppose 1923, when under de Valera’s leadership the rump of Sinn Fein won 44 seats, was their previous high watermark. After the 1926 split they basically became irrelevant.
Before the election. That is a lifetime ago. Wednesday was a lifetime ago.
Its why PR voting systems suck. What the parties say before the election means moot after it.
The exact same incentives to keep and break promises exist in both FPTP and PR. If a promise is hugely popular, it will win majority support under FPTP and PR.
The difference is that PR will not produce fictitious majority support for something the unions or hedge funds buried on p93 of the manifesto.
Irish election producing first count results for SF like those for Labour In 1997....... Castle Point......Lab Gain!
Or 2019 for the Tories....
The Tory vote went up 1.4%> fed up of people insinuating that they got a landslide.
Don't be ridiculous.
The Tories won 43.6% of the vote in 2019. That's the highest share of the vote won by any party since 1979, and higher than the vote shares that produced any of Thatcher and Blair's landsldes!
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
Before the election. That is a lifetime ago. Wednesday was a lifetime ago.
Its why PR voting systems suck. What the parties say before the election means moot after it.
The exact same incentives to keep and break promises exist in both FPTP and PR. If a promise is hugely popular, it will win majority support under FPTP and PR.
The difference is that PR will not produce fictitious majority support for something the unions or hedge funds buried on p93 of the manifesto.
Not true. Under FPTP the parties form "big tents" which have to compromise BEFORE the election, rather than after it.
Under PR something for unions or hedge funds don't need to be on anyone's manifesto they can just do whatever they please afterwards.
Before the election. That is a lifetime ago. Wednesday was a lifetime ago.
Its why PR voting systems suck. What the parties say before the election means moot after it.
FF will continue propping up FG with confidence and supply as they do now or vice versa, they will not do a deal with SF as the weaker party that would break the FF and FG monopoly
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
Netflix documentary The Pharmacist is really interesting. Absolutely crazy how Opiods became legalised drug dealing for dodgy doctors.
Freakonomics recently had a 2 part special on them. One of the craziest things, there is a safer alternative, but you aren't allowed to prescribe them unless you go on an specialist training course every year just for that drug, so of course basically few doctor do. Thus, it is way easier to prescribe the much more addictive things like OxyContin.
Before the election. That is a lifetime ago. Wednesday was a lifetime ago.
Its why PR voting systems suck. What the parties say before the election means moot after it.
FF will continue propping up FG with confidence and supply as they do now or vice versa, they will not do a deal with SF as the weaker party that would break the FF and FG monopoly
You project your opinion as if everyone should agree with you.
FF have just said they will talk with all parties, unlike your ascertion a few minutes ago
Who knows what will happen in Ireland over this election
Before the election. That is a lifetime ago. Wednesday was a lifetime ago.
Its why PR voting systems suck. What the parties say before the election means moot after it.
FF will continue propping up FG with confidence and supply as they do now or vice versa, they will not do a deal with SF as the weaker party that would break the FF and FG monopoly
They can be smaller party under one or smaller party under the other. Either way they'll be the smaller party. Unless SF fail to get more seats due to their lack of candidates . . . in which case potentially they could be the larger party over SF, or the smaller party under FG.
What people don't want to listen to a load of multimillionaire actors bang on about the lack of diversity in their industry and climate change for 5hrs....
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
You don’t seem to be able to get your head around the fact they’re not electing a government, they are electing a legislature.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
What about seats where the result is similar to that in Ynys Mon last December?
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
The majority of people did not vote for this government.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
You don’t seem to be able to get your head around the fact they’re not electing a government, they are electing a legislature.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
You don’t seem to be able to get your head around the fact they’re not electing a government, they are electing a legislature.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
The majority of people did not vote for this government.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
The majority of people did not vote for this government.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
You don’t seem to be able to get your head around the fact they’re not electing a government, they are electing a legislature.
The government is a byproduct.
That's a distinction without a difference.
They're electing both.
Well you seem to focus entirely on the fact the people are not getting a government they “wanted” but ignoring the fact they are in fact getting a legislature they did want, or at least much closer to that than the UK’s system.
Nothing is destroyed by the destruction of the United Kingdom, so let's not exaggerate. You might just as well call it the creation of a United Ireland and an independent Scotland.
It is worth remembering at this juncture that maintaining a political union with Scotland and Northern Ireland alike requires a very considerable yearly outlay of English taxpayers' money to places where much of the population feels h a fashion is to make it a structure that is equitable and addresses the needs and concerns of all its members. So if it's going to die why not just let it?
erendum rather than whine constantly.
Goochance it will happen in Autumn 2021 Malc, but the union will win
d
It won't happen while Boris is PM as the Tory manifesto made clear the 2014 referendum was 'once in a generation'
It will in the circumstances Scots opinion demands it post Holyrood 2021
On this subject you are running the very real risk of being wrong
I am not as it needs Westminster approval as was the case in 2014 and Westminster now has a Tory majority elected on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2
Things change - politics change - you can parrot Scots
And HYUFD is assuming Boris is going to keep his promises.
You will lose this argument if 2021 goes the SNP way
Actually even most Scots oppose indyref2 for at least 5 years, regardless of whether the SNP win next year's Holyrood election
For Fucks Sake the Tweet Says Within 5 years. The Tweet you are actually posting says WITHIN.
WITHIN.
WITHIN.
By 46% to 41% Scots oppose indyref2 even if the SNP win a majority at Holyrood next year
They do, however, support one within the next 5 years by 44% to 39%.
The next UK general election will be held within 4 and a half years so Boris can correctly refuse indyref2 for the rest of his term with the support of most Scots
That implies that the latest likely date for the next election is June 2024. I don't disagree.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
You don’t seem to be able to get your head around the fact they’re not electing a government, they are electing a legislature.
The government is a byproduct.
That's a distinction without a difference.
They're electing both.
Well you seem to focus entirely on the fact the people are not getting a government they “wanted” but ignoring the fact they are in fact getting a legislature they did want, or at least much closer to that than the UK’s system.
I disagree. In the UK every MP in the legislature got the most votes in their constituency, they were the most wanted.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
The majority of people did not vote for this government.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
You don’t seem to be able to get your head around the fact they’re not electing a government, they are electing a legislature.
The government is a byproduct.
That's a distinction without a difference.
They're electing both.
Well you seem to focus entirely on the fact the people are not getting a government they “wanted” but ignoring the fact they are in fact getting a legislature they did want, or at least much closer to that than the UK’s system.
I disagree. In the UK every MP in the legislature got the most votes in their constituency, they were the most wanted.
That's not the case in Ireland.
When you look at it through your tiny, narrow viewpoint, sure.
Before the election. That is a lifetime ago. Wednesday was a lifetime ago.
Its why PR voting systems suck. What the parties say before the election means moot after it.
FF will continue propping up FG with confidence and supply as they do now or vice versa, they will not do a deal with SF as the weaker party that would break the FF and FG monopoly
You project your opinion as if everyone should agree with you.
FF have just said they will talk with all parties, unlike your ascertion a few minutes ago
Who knows what will happen in Ireland over this election
No I post What has been stated on the record before by Michael Martin as I also posted what was stated by the Scottish Secretary.
You of course project your views claiming to be a conservative despite voting for New Labour twice
Before the election. That is a lifetime ago. Wednesday was a lifetime ago.
Its why PR voting systems suck. What the parties say before the election means moot after it.
FF will continue propping up FG with confidence and supply as they do now or vice versa, they will not do a deal with SF as the weaker party that would break the FF and FG monopoly
You project your opinion as if everyone should agree with you.
FF have just said they will talk with all parties, unlike your ascertion a few minutes ago
Who knows what will happen in Ireland over this election
No I post What has been stated on the record before by Michael Martin as I also posted what was stated by the Scottish Secretary.
You of course project your views claiming to be a conservative while voting for New Labour twice
You are of course a loyal supporter of Conservative Party FC. The greatest supporters in all the land.
The next UK general election will be held within 4 and a half years so Boris can correctly refuse indyref2 for the rest of his term with the support of most Scots
That implies that the latest likely date for the next election is June 2024. I don't disagree.
Under the law as it stands it has to be before May 2024, although that might well be changed.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
The majority of people did not vote for this government.
Is that your comfort blanket
Nope, just a fact.
Its also irrelevant.
There is a major weakness in our system that FPTP creates the illusion of popularity and consensus where none actually exists. Majority governments forget that at their peril and grow out of touch. Now, in the past Labour and Tory. The delusion effects them all.
Before the election. That is a lifetime ago. Wednesday was a lifetime ago.
Its why PR voting systems suck. What the parties say before the election means moot after it.
FF will continue propping up FG with confidence and supply as they do now or vice versa, they will not do a deal with SF as the weaker party that would break the FF and FG monopoly
They can be smaller party under one or smaller party under the other. Either way they'll be the smaller party. Unless SF fail to get more seats due to their lack of candidates . . . in which case potentially they could be the larger party over SF, or the smaller party under FG.
There is likely now room for only 1 non SF party, if FF renege on their promises pre election and do a deal with SF that will leave that non SF party as FG and FF will be writing its own death warrant
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
The majority of people did not vote for this government.
Is that your comfort blanket
Nope, just a fact.
Its also irrelevant.
There is a major weakness in our system that FPTP creates the illusion of popularity and consensus where none actually exists. Majority governments forget that at their peril and grown out of touch. Now, in the past Labour and Tory. The delusion effects them all.
I think the public are pretty good at making their voice heard if they think the government really is out of touch and doing lots of things they disagree with. They get blasted at locals and ultimately at the GE.
When you lose control of vast swathes of councils / mayors, they can also put a fair bit of pressure on the government and / or get a lot of publicity over issues.
The next UK general election will be held within 4 and a half years so Boris can correctly refuse indyref2 for the rest of his term with the support of most Scots
That implies that the latest likely date for the next election is June 2024. I don't disagree.
Under the law as it stands it has to be before May 2024, although that might well be changed.
Indeed - the FTPA requires Polling Day to be the first Thursday in May 2024. That might well still be the likely date, but given the declared intention to repeal it the June option would also be there.
The next UK general election will be held within 4 and a half years so Boris can correctly refuse indyref2 for the rest of his term with the support of most Scots
That implies that the latest likely date for the next election is June 2024. I don't disagree.
Under the law as it stands it has to be before May 2024, although that might well be changed.
Indeed - the FTPA requires Polling Day to be the first Thursday in May 2024. That might well still be the likely date, but given the declared intention to repeal it the June option would also be there.
The interesting thing is what they will replace the FTPA with now they cannot restore the royal prerogative.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
The majority of people did not vote for this government.
Is that your comfort blanket
Nope, just a fact.
Its also irrelevant.
There is a major weakness in our system that FPTP creates the illusion of popularity and consensus where none actually exists. Majority governments forget that at their peril and grown out of touch. Now, in the past Labour and Tory. The delusion effects them all.
I think the public are pretty good at making their voice heard if they think the government really is out of touch and doing lots of things they disagree with. They get blasted at locals and ultimately at the GE.
The shrewd leader would remember that just because they have a majorIty in parliament does not mean they have majority support in the country and govern accordingly.
Sadly leaders forget that, believe their own myths, and it is their undoing.
Biden: "“I’ve lost a lot in my life,” he said, referencing not just Beau but the wife and daughter who died in a car crash shortly after that first Senate win. “I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand by and lose my country too.”
In all seriousness. Respect to Biden for even surviving, emotionally, after that.
I wonder if this is why he is so creepily touchy-feelly?
Seriously. If I had lost family in that tragic way I might also want to sniff the hair of children: you are trying to recapture the lost child.
All parents know this. When your kids are really young you just smell them, and (when washed) they smell GOOD. The product of your genes: another, better, younger version of you, that will live on. It's an entirely animal but instinctive thing to do.
Ah, poor bastard.
Nirvana had a song ‘Scentless Apprentice’ that starts ‘Like most babies smell like butter’ that I had not really thought about until my son was born recently... he did smell like butter, and I kept smelling him to check
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
You don’t seem to be able to get your head around the fact they’re not electing a government, they are electing a legislature.
The government is a byproduct.
That's a distinction without a difference.
They're electing both.
Well you seem to focus entirely on the fact the people are not getting a government they “wanted” but ignoring the fact they are in fact getting a legislature they did want, or at least much closer to that than the UK’s system.
I disagree. In the UK every MP in the legislature got the most votes in their constituency, they were the most wanted.
That's not the case in Ireland.
When you look at it through your tiny, narrow viewpoint, sure.
Everything I said was a matter of fact. Your tiny, narrow viewpoint may not like my facts but they what they are.
The next UK general election will be held within 4 and a half years so Boris can correctly refuse indyref2 for the rest of his term with the support of most Scots
That implies that the latest likely date for the next election is June 2024. I don't disagree.
Under the law as it stands it has to be before May 2024, although that might well be changed.
Indeed - the FTPA requires Polling Day to be the first Thursday in May 2024. That might well still be the likely date, but given the declared intention to repeal it the June option would also be there.
The interesting thing is what they will replace the FTPA with now they cannot restore the royal prerogative.
The next UK general election will be held within 4 and a half years so Boris can correctly refuse indyref2 for the rest of his term with the support of most Scots
That implies that the latest likely date for the next election is June 2024. I don't disagree.
Under the law as it stands it has to be before May 2024, although that might well be changed.
Indeed - the FTPA requires Polling Day to be the first Thursday in May 2024. That might well still be the likely date, but given the declared intention to repeal it the June option would also be there.
The interesting thing is what they will replace the FTPA with now they cannot restore the royal prerogative.
If the FTPA is not repealed, this Parliament will be dissolved at the end of March 2024 - so it will have lasted but barely 4 years and 3 months
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
You don’t seem to be able to get your head around the fact they’re not electing a government, they are electing a legislature.
The government is a byproduct.
This is one of those brilliant facts that's technically true, but totally irrelevant.
Consider, for example, the ~1m Green party voters at the 2019 UK GE. Which do you think they'd rather have: - 20 backbench MPs, spending the next five years shouting at the government and accomplishing nothing; or - Caroline Lucas as Minister for the enivronment, and zero other MPs?
It's lovely that politically engaged types understand the distinction between electing the government and electing the legislature that then determines the government, but the average person on the street gives zero tosses about the latter.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
You don’t seem to be able to get your head around the fact they’re not electing a government, they are electing a legislature.
The government is a byproduct.
That's a distinction without a difference.
They're electing both.
Well you seem to focus entirely on the fact the people are not getting a government they “wanted” but ignoring the fact they are in fact getting a legislature they did want, or at least much closer to that than the UK’s system.
I disagree. In the UK every MP in the legislature got the most votes in their constituency, they were the most wanted.
That's not the case in Ireland.
When you look at it through your tiny, narrow viewpoint, sure.
Everything I said was a matter of fact. Your tiny, narrow viewpoint may not like my facts but they what they are.
What you said may be technically factual but it is not the “truth”. You look at things through such a tiny, narrow viewpoint that you fail to even acknowledge the bigger picture. You know for a fact that our system produces a disproportionate result which is not in keeping with what people actually voted for. You may think that the benefits of FPTP outweigh the downside, and that’s fine, but your arrogance of your viewpoint being the universal truth just clouds everything.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
You don’t seem to be able to get your head around the fact they’re not electing a government, they are electing a legislature.
The government is a byproduct.
This is one of those brilliant facts that's technically true, but totally irrelevant.
Consider, for example, the ~1m Green party voters at the 2019 UK GE. Which do you think they'd rather have: - 20 backbench MPs, spending the next five years shouting at the government and accomplishing nothing; or - Caroline Lucas as Minister for the enivronment, and zero other MPs?
It's lovely that politically engaged types understand the distinction between electing the government and electing the legislature that then determines the government, but the average person on the street gives zero tosses about the latter.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
You don’t seem to be able to get your head around the fact they’re not electing a government, they are electing a legislature.
The government is a byproduct.
This is one of those brilliant facts that's technically true, but totally irrelevant.
Consider, for example, the ~1m Green party voters at the 2019 UK GE. Which do you think they'd rather have: - 20 backbench MPs, spending the next five years shouting at the government and accomplishing nothing; or - Caroline Lucas as Minister for the enivronment, and zero other MPs?
It's lovely that politically engaged types understand the distinction between electing the government and electing the legislature that then determines the government, but the average person on the street gives zero tosses about the latter.
What point are you making?
That the primary purpose of any electoral system should be to make sure that the government and its policy platform is as representative as possible of the votes cast. Not the legislature.
Well, technically it was still one party in 1922, and they won 59% of the vote and all but 24 seats.
The minor detail that they were literally about to start a war is irrelevant.
I suppose 1923, when under de Valera’s leadership the rump of Sinn Fein won 44 seats, was their previous high watermark. After the 1926 split they basically became irrelevant.
SF split in 1922 into the Pro-Treaty faction, which eventually morphed into FG. Then in 1926, De Valera disagreed with abstentionism, leading to him effectively breaking with his own SF party and founding FF.
Then, as you say the rump SF were basically irrelevant.
During the early stages of the Troubles, in 1970, SF split into the "traditionalists", who became the Provos, and the "lefties", who became the Officials.
In 1972, the Officials declared a ceasefire, leading to some members breaking away as the INLA (Irish Nationalist Liberation Army) and its political wing, the Irish Republican Socialist Party. Eventually, by 1982, the Officials morphed into the avowedly leftist Workers' Party.
The INLA themselves split into the IPLO (Irish People's Liberation Organisation) in 1987, though involvement in drug dealing led to the latter being all but wiped out by the Provos by 1992.
Meanwhile in 1986, The Provos' decision to contest elections in the Republic, abandoning abstentionism, led to the formation of the Continuity IRA and Republican Sinn Fein.
In 1992, the Workers' Party also split, with a majority of elected members in the Republic forming Democratic Left, which eventually merged with Irish Labour in 1999.
So, hopefully it can be seen that no less than FOUR parties in the Republic have origins in, or merged with elements descended from, the original 1905 incarnation of Sinn Fein.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
You don’t seem to be able to get your head around the fact they’re not electing a government, they are electing a legislature.
The government is a byproduct.
This is one of those brilliant facts that's technically true, but totally irrelevant.
Consider, for example, the ~1m Green party voters at the 2019 UK GE. Which do you think they'd rather have: - 20 backbench MPs, spending the next five years shouting at the government and accomplishing nothing; or - Caroline Lucas as Minister for the enivronment, and zero other MPs?
It's lovely that politically engaged types understand the distinction between electing the government and electing the legislature that then determines the government, but the average person on the street gives zero tosses about the latter.
What point are you making?
That the primary purpose of any electoral system should be to make sure that the government and it's policy platform is as representative as possible of the votes cast. Not the legislature.
Well the US system is more honest in this regard. The only way to achieve that is to directly elect the government.
What you said may be technically factual but it is not the “truth”. You look at things through such a tiny, narrow viewpoint that you fail to even acknowledge the bigger picture. You know for a fact that our system produces a disproportionate result which is not in keeping with what people actually voted for. You may think that the benefits of FPTP outweigh the downside, and that’s fine, but your arrogance of your viewpoint being the universal truth just clouds everything.
The bigger picture is that under FPTP our parties make compromises before the election and the voters make an informed choice.
PR appeals to tiny narrow viewpoints who don't want to join a big tent, who want to vote for a tiny narrow party.
But compromises are necessary. So after the election the compromises must be made but by then its too late for the voters to judge.
There is a major weakness in our system that FPTP creates the illusion of popularity and consensus where none actually exists. Majority governments forget that at their peril and grown out of touch. Now, in the past Labour and Tory. The delusion effects them all.
I think the public are pretty good at making their voice heard if they think the government really is out of touch and doing lots of things they disagree with. They get blasted at locals and ultimately at the GE.
When you lose control of vast swathes of councils / mayors, they can also put a fair bit of pressure on the government and / or get a lot of publicity over issues.
That only happens if the government loses a substantial portion of the *minority* who voted for them in the first place. They can screw the majority who did not vote for them to their heart's content.
Whereas under a coalition of parties that, between them, won a majority of the vote, nobody gets everything they want, but a majority get an outcome they can live with (and if not, they really can make the parties pay next time). That's plainly fairer.
On top of that, preference voting provides a little protection for minorities from the tyranny of the majority, because governments can't say "who cares, they're not going to vote for us anyway". They still need their transfers.
The only advantage of FPTP is a scaled down version of the advantage of dictatorship: it's easier to get things done if people who disagree with you have no power.
There is a major weakness in our system that FPTP creates the illusion of popularity and consensus where none actually exists. Majority governments forget that at their peril and grown out of touch. Now, in the past Labour and Tory. The delusion effects them all.
I think the public are pretty good at making their voice heard if they think the government really is out of touch and doing lots of things they disagree with. They get blasted at locals and ultimately at the GE.
When you lose control of vast swathes of councils / mayors, they can also put a fair bit of pressure on the government and / or get a lot of publicity over issues.
That only happens if the government loses a substantial portion of the *minority* who voted for them in the first place. They can screw the majority who did not vote for them to their heart's content.
It isn't how people react though. If you get a really unpopular government, people than put aside their ideal choice and coalesce behind a realistic alternative. So if you screw the majority that didn't vote for them, you find next time around many people put aside some idealism and focus on removal.
I know tactical voting is overstated and people sort of screw it up, but it seems if a government becomes really bad the wisdom of the crowd finds a way of getting rid.
What you said may be technically factual but it is not the “truth”. You look at things through such a tiny, narrow viewpoint that you fail to even acknowledge the bigger picture. You know for a fact that our system produces a disproportionate result which is not in keeping with what people actually voted for. You may think that the benefits of FPTP outweigh the downside, and that’s fine, but your arrogance of your viewpoint being the universal truth just clouds everything.
The bigger picture is that under FPTP our parties make compromises before the election and the voters make an informed choice.
PR appeals to tiny narrow viewpoints who don't want to join a big tent, who want to vote for a tiny narrow party.
But compromises are necessary. So after the election the compromises must be made but by then its too late for the voters to judge.
But voters cannot make an informed choice. They have to vote for the least worst out of two options. If I vote Labour, I have to take Labour as they come. If I vote Conservative, I have to take them as they come. If I don’t like either of them, I’m snookered.
Under PR, I could vote for the New Labour party and give them more power in the “left” block of parties. I could vote for the One Nation Conservative party to give them more power in the “right” block of parties.
Manifestos mean absolutely nothing under FPTP anyway. Don’t pretend otherwise. They are so vague and full of “consultation this, best endeavour that”
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
This argument is circular. Naturally, if you reduce the choice set for most people to two, one of the two will tend to enjoy majority support (barring the quirks than any electoral system can produce). One may as well say that everyone in America wanted either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to be president, when lots and lots of people of course didn't.
Well, technically it was still one party in 1922, and they won 59% of the vote and all but 24 seats.
The minor detail that they were literally about to start a war is irrelevant.
I suppose 1923, when under de Valera’s leadership the rump of Sinn Fein won 44 seats, was their previous high watermark. After the 1926 split they basically became irrelevant.
SF split in 1922 into the Pro-Treaty faction, which eventually morphed into FG. Then in 1926, De Valera disagreed with abstentionism, leading to him effectively breaking with his own SF party and founding FF.
Then, as you say the rump SF were basically irrelevant.
During the early stages of the Troubles, in 1970, SF split into the "traditionalists", who became the Provos, and the "lefties", who became the Officials.
In 1972, the Officials declared a ceasefire, leading to some members breaking away as the INLA (Irish Nationalist Liberation Army) and its political wing, the Irish Republican Socialist Party. Eventually, by 1982, the Officials morphed into the avowedly leftist Workers' Party.
The INLA themselves split into the IPLO (Irish People's Liberation Organisation) in 1987, though involvement in drug dealing led to the latter being all but wiped out by the Provos by 1992.
Meanwhile in 1986, The Provos' decision to contest elections in the Republic, abandoning abstentionism, led to the formation of the Continuity IRA and Republican Sinn Fein.
In 1992, the Workers' Party also split, with a majority of elected members in the Republic forming Democratic Left, which eventually merged with Irish Labour in 1999.
So, hopefully it can be seen that no less than FOUR parties in the Republic have origins in, or merged with elements descended from, the original 1905 incarnation of Sinn Fein.
Good history Sunil.
Question: do Sinn Fein attract the same abhorrence from mainstream Irish opinion as they do from mainstream British opinion? In Britain we still see them as, if not murderers, then at least people who do the PR for murderers. But maybe in the ROI they have a different image?
The next UK general election will be held within 4 and a half years so Boris can correctly refuse indyref2 for the rest of his term with the support of most Scots
That implies that the latest likely date for the next election is June 2024. I don't disagree.
Under the law as it stands it has to be before May 2024, although that might well be changed.
Indeed - the FTPA requires Polling Day to be the first Thursday in May 2024. That might well still be the likely date, but given the declared intention to repeal it the June option would also be there.
Pshaw - May and June are old hat. December's been so lucky for us we may as well give it another go next time
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Well, technically it was still one party in 1922, and they won 59% of the vote and all but 24 seats.
The minor detail that they were literally about to start a war is irrelevant.
I suppose 1923, when under de Valera’s leadership the rump of Sinn Fein won 44 seats, was their previous high watermark. After the 1926 split they basically became irrelevant.
SF split in 1922 into the Pro-Treaty faction, which eventually morphed into FG. Then in 1926, De Valera disagreed with abstentionism, leading to him effectively breaking with his own SF party and founding FF.
Then, as you say the rump SF were basically irrelevant.
During the early stages of the Troubles, in 1970, SF split into the "traditionalists", who became the Provos, and the "lefties", who became the Officials.
In 1972, the Officials declared a ceasefire, leading to some members breaking away as the INLA (Irish Nationalist Liberation Army) and its political wing, the Irish Republican Socialist Party. Eventually, by 1982, the Officials morphed into the avowedly leftist Workers' Party.
The INLA themselves split into the IPLO (Irish People's Liberation Organisation) in 1987, though involvement in drug dealing led to the latter being all but wiped out by the Provos by 1992.
Meanwhile in 1986, The Provos' decision to contest elections in the Republic, abandoning abstentionism, led to the formation of the Continuity IRA and Republican Sinn Fein.
In 1992, the Workers' Party also split, with a majority of elected members in the Republic forming Democratic Left, which eventually merged with Irish Labour in 1999.
So, hopefully it can be seen that no less than FOUR parties in the Republic have origins in, or merged with elements descended from, the original 1905 incarnation of Sinn Fein.
Good history Sunil.
Question: do Sinn Fein attract the same abhorrence from mainstream Irish opinion as they do from mainstream British opinion? In Britain we still see them as, if not murderers, then at least people who do the PR for murderers. But maybe in the ROI they have a different image?
To anyone around my age or younger, Sinn Fein are just another political party. The IRA link is a historical quirk.
FPTP: you choose from 2 big bundles and sometimes, by no means always, you get a government with a big enough majority to do it. You don't like everything in the bundle. PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle. Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
FPTP: Bundling occurs before the election and voters can judge it. PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
In different parts of the country, the FPTP choice is between two bundles like far-left anti-Semitism versus hard Brexit, or Scottish independence versus revoke-Remain. Plenty of people may well judge those forced-choices and find them wanting.
Forced choice is better than No Choice.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
This argument is circular. Naturally, if you reduce the choice set for most people to two, one of the two will tend to enjoy majority support (barring the quirks than any electoral system can produce). One may as well say that everyone in America wanted either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to be president, when lots and lots of people of course didn't.
Lots of people want lots of things. Its not about what they want.
If we could vote for whatever we wanted without any consequence to what everyone else would want then I'd want to be PM myself. However I'm not the only voter in this country so that's not happening.
Comments
https://www.ibtimes.com/coronavirus-update-russia-blames-usa-ncov-2019-outbreak-2916034
They all have their different mix of advantages and disadvantages.
The debate is really about which mix of those to choose.
I think that would have broken me for good.
I am not necessarily damning all forms of PR - some are better than others. What I don't like is the way it works in Ireland.
Getting in only on the fourth or more must be a bruise to the ego.
FG won't go into a coalition with SF but FF might. Could FF/SF with some Independents have enough seats for a majority in the Dail?
It's presumably the end for Varadkar whatever happens so who is the next FG leader?
Would SF demand serious Cabinet positions as a price for supporting an FF Government or might it be the other way round?
1 candidate who gets 30% of all first preferences in a 5 member seat. Almost double the vote of the next closest candidate.
https://www.rte.ie/news/election-2020/results/#/national/dublin-bay-north
https://paulbigland.blog/2020/02/09/storm-ciara-floods-the-calder-valley/
STV is better than many but it's not perfect.
My personal preference is direct proportionality - you get 20% of the vote, you get 20% of the seats.
The only real difference in political cultures between proportional and "winner takes all" systems is in the former you get a bloc of parties working together on the "centre right" and similar on the "centre left" and power oscillates between each grouping. In the WTA systems, there are single parties which encompass the bloc so the Conservative Party is, by its own definition, a broad church encompassing a range of centre-right opinion. It is its own bloc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwZ6UfXm410
https://sluggerotoole.com/2020/01/14/micheal-martin-cites-sinn-feins-secret-leadership-as-reason-to-exclude-them-from-government/
I think quite a few UK PR advocates (not you) seem to think there's some latent centrist coalition they can exorcise from the electorate, if only we had the right electoral system.
Of course, it's nonsense. If we'd had open party list or STV here we'd have had a direct Tory-UKIP coalition government by now, not Chukka Umunna United.
They're really mourning the politics of the mid-late 1990s.
Looking at the results in so far, Sinn Fein look to me to be on course to win at least 10 seats fewer than they could have, if only they had had the benefit of hindsight.
The composition of the post election government including the successor to Varadkhar (who may yet stay now) could rest on that.
That is not a minor detail.
And with decisions on candidates those decisions have to be taken at the very start of the campaign. In your example of where resources are spent, parties can and do switch resources right up to polling day as polling evidence emerges.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87gwt7Fv5U4
The minor detail that they were literally about to start a war is irrelevant.
I suppose 1923, when under de Valera’s leadership the rump of Sinn Fein won 44 seats, was their previous high watermark. After the 1926 split they basically became irrelevant.
He should have run in 2016.
Its why PR voting systems suck. What the parties say before the election means moot after it.
The difference is that PR will not produce fictitious majority support for something the unions or hedge funds buried on p93 of the manifesto.
The Tories won 43.6% of the vote in 2019. That's the highest share of the vote won by any party since 1979, and higher than the vote shares that produced any of Thatcher and Blair's landsldes!
PR: you choose from a wide range of small bundles and sometimes your choice and those of others gets negotiated into a bigger bundle. You don't like everything in the bundle.
Ultimately no democratic system can aggregate people's conflicting preference sets, unless they are reduced to the most base tribalism.
Under PR something for unions or hedge funds don't need to be on anyone's manifesto they can just do whatever they please afterwards.
Is anyone surprised.
PR: Bundling occurs after the election and voters don't get a say.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/opioids-part-2/
FF have just said they will talk with all parties, unlike your ascertion a few minutes ago
Who knows what will happen in Ireland over this election
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-7984505/I-not-form-Government-Sinn-Fein-says-Varadkar.html
At any rate, doesn't change my point. If SF are good enough to govern in NI, they are good enough to govern in the Republic.
The forced choice in the UK led to a government the UK voted for.
If following this election Ireland ends up with an SF/FF government then not a single person would have voted for that.
The government is a byproduct.
They're electing both.
That's not the case in Ireland.
You of course project your views claiming to be a conservative despite voting for New Labour twice
When you lose control of vast swathes of councils / mayors, they can also put a fair bit of pressure on the government and / or get a lot of publicity over issues.
Sadly leaders forget that, believe their own myths, and it is their undoing.
Consider, for example, the ~1m Green party voters at the 2019 UK GE. Which do you think they'd rather have:
- 20 backbench MPs, spending the next five years shouting at the government and accomplishing nothing; or
- Caroline Lucas as Minister for the enivronment, and zero other MPs?
It's lovely that politically engaged types understand the distinction between electing the government and electing the legislature that then determines the government, but the average person on the street gives zero tosses about the latter.
Then in 1926, De Valera disagreed with abstentionism, leading to him effectively breaking with his own SF party and founding FF.
Then, as you say the rump SF were basically irrelevant.
During the early stages of the Troubles, in 1970, SF split into the "traditionalists", who became the Provos, and the "lefties", who became the Officials.
In 1972, the Officials declared a ceasefire, leading to some members breaking away as the INLA (Irish Nationalist Liberation Army) and its political wing, the Irish Republican Socialist Party. Eventually, by 1982, the Officials morphed into the avowedly leftist Workers' Party.
The INLA themselves split into the IPLO (Irish People's Liberation Organisation) in 1987, though involvement in drug dealing led to the latter being all but wiped out by the Provos by 1992.
Meanwhile in 1986, The Provos' decision to contest elections in the Republic, abandoning abstentionism, led to the formation of the Continuity IRA and Republican Sinn Fein.
In 1992, the Workers' Party also split, with a majority of elected members in the Republic forming Democratic Left, which eventually merged with Irish Labour in 1999.
So, hopefully it can be seen that no less than FOUR parties in the Republic have origins in, or merged with elements descended from, the original 1905 incarnation of Sinn Fein.
PR appeals to tiny narrow viewpoints who don't want to join a big tent, who want to vote for a tiny narrow party.
But compromises are necessary. So after the election the compromises must be made but by then its too late for the voters to judge.
Whereas under a coalition of parties that, between them, won a majority of the vote, nobody gets everything they want, but a majority get an outcome they can live with (and if not, they really can make the parties pay next time). That's plainly fairer.
On top of that, preference voting provides a little protection for minorities from the tyranny of the majority, because governments can't say "who cares, they're not going to vote for us anyway". They still need their transfers.
The only advantage of FPTP is a scaled down version of the advantage of dictatorship: it's easier to get things done if people who disagree with you have no power.
I know tactical voting is overstated and people sort of screw it up, but it seems if a government becomes really bad the wisdom of the crowd finds a way of getting rid.
Under PR, I could vote for the New Labour party and give them more power in the “left” block of parties. I could vote for the One Nation Conservative party to give them more power in the “right” block of parties.
Manifestos mean absolutely nothing under FPTP anyway. Don’t pretend otherwise. They are so vague and full of “consultation this, best endeavour that”
Question: do Sinn Fein attract the same abhorrence from mainstream Irish opinion as they do from mainstream British opinion? In Britain we still see them as, if not murderers, then at least people who do the PR for murderers. But maybe in the ROI they have a different image?
The IRA link is a historical quirk.
If we could vote for whatever we wanted without any consequence to what everyone else would want then I'd want to be PM myself. However I'm not the only voter in this country so that's not happening.