Why is the current voting system in the UK flawed and how can it be improved?

[OmCheeto]

I'm sure this is a rant for another thread, but I feel I'm being very generous when I say there might be 1 out of 1,000 reasons why someone else not using their blinker would cause me to have an accident. The simple solution "pay attention to your own driving and stay alert to what conditions are around you"

Driving styles and Politics... Has anyone mentioned Religion yet?

But, yes, people should pay attention.

Unless you have ADD, and then it becomes; "Oh look! It's raining very hard! I should have cleaned my gutters".

ps. Has anyone started an "Oh my god, the Pubs control both houses now" thread? I've lots of spare time on my hand nowadays. Yesterday, I spent 3 hours making a bowl of soup, and 3 hours building a new and improved ammeter. The soup was very good. The ammeter is making me crazy...

 

[DocZaius]

I do not vote for the following reasons:
1. I am not well informed about the candidates and their positions, but have little interest to be because of #2:
2. Over the years, I have noticed that the differences in the parties and positions of elected representatives have had a very small impact on my personal life and resulted in low variance on my lifestyle and tax burden. This is indeed a selfish approach.
3. It is highly unlikely (but possible - a risk I am willing to take because of reason #2) that whichever side I wanted to win either tied or lost by a single vote (which would have been my vote). I don't understand why upon hearing this, people argue "well if a lot of people thought like you..." But my point would still be valid since I am comparing the quantity (the number of people voting for my side) to (the number of people voting for my side plus one). The difference between those quantities is 1 no matter what reasoning other people chose to or chose not to adopt. And a difference of 1 is still highly unlikely to result in a change in outcome of the winner (but again, not impossible).

To illustrate further my last point, compare these universes (bearing in mind my point about one vote and its associated likelihood in changing the results of an election!)

-The one in which I voted Tuesday
-The one in which I did not vote Tuesday

And tell me how different they are, without an appeal to emotional concepts like "sense of duty" etc..

Now consider the universes in which I either decide to jaywalk across the street or not (hit by a car?), in which I decide to eat this relatively old piece of food that's been in fridge too long (sick from old food?), in which I decide to apply for this job or not (marked change in my income?). I understand that all these choices are not mutually exclusive, but I hope you can understand what I spend more time worrying about.

 

[Orodruin]

Well, the alternative would be something like in Franchise by I. Asimov ...
Personally, I am happy not to live in a system where one particular person's vote is certain to be decisive as such systems tend to be dictatorships. The entire point of a democratic system is to reach majority decisions. In the end, you have (more or less, depending on country/region/etc) the same amount of say as each and every one else in the electorate.

 

[dlgoff]

... To two-thirds of voters that chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, ...

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/...minds-the-gop-a-majority-didnt-vote-for-them/

See. You don't need to vote to be heard. :D

 

[nikkkom]

Whenever I start discussing about this topic, I always get negative response and people say that I'm stupid for asking such a silly question.

However, if you think logically, your vote has absolutely no impact on the results. Even if you manage to convince your family, friends and a hundred more people to vote exactly like you, the results would still be the same.

Let me borrow your logic
One drop of water can't possibly affect the weather.
The rain consists only of drops of water.
Therefore, the news about flooding from torrential rains I just read in the news are lies.
LOL.

Another angle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Look at first, say, 40 entries - the richest countries.
Most of them are democracies (countries where people can vote). A few exceptions such as Kuwait are rich because they have vast oil deposits.
This is empirical evidence that this voting thing *is* making a difference.

 

[BHL 20]

Let me borrow your logic
Most of them are democracies (countries where people can vote). A few exceptions such as Kuwait are rich because they have vast oil deposits.
This is empirical evidence that this voting thing *is* making a difference.

Correlation and covariance. Voting isn't what makes the difference. Democratic rights and wealth are both inversely proportional to the amount corruption in a country.

 

[nikkkom]

Correlation and covariance. Voting isn't what makes the difference. Democratic rights and wealth are both inversely proportional to the amount corruption in a country.

Wrong.
Counter-example.
North Korea has low corruption. Literally: people there very rarely dare to break the law. And yet, it is extremely poor.

 

[Danger]

The more I see and hear about USA politics, the more I'm convinced that the only reliable source of information about the subject is "The Daily Show".

 

[Orodruin]

Wrong.
Counter-example.
North Korea has low corruption. Literally: people there very rarely dare to break the law. And yet, it is extremely poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

 

[Danger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Given that the top 20 "non-corrupt" places include the USA and we Canucks, both of which have rampant corruption, that is a truly frightening chart.

 

[Orodruin]

There are differences in what would be considered rampant corruption. A few years back, the Swedish corruption was "rampant" when it turned out the new minister of culture had not paid the TV-licence fee...

 

[OmCheeto]

Correlation and covariance. Voting isn't what makes the difference. Democratic rights and wealth are both inversely proportional to the amount corruption in a country.

I have no idea what you just said. I'm somewhat linguistically illiterate, and would appreciate if you could turn your word problem into a mathematical equation, or, provide links to backup your claim.

On the other hand, when asked, by the people showing up at my front door for the last two months, what I thought was the biggest problem, I said; "Corruption".

So, somewhere, in the back of my head, I think I somewhat agree with you.

Though, we had someone here at the forum, years ago, that posted his presidential picks for the last 50 years, and it appeared he always voted for the loser. My only conclusion was that he was a pollster, knew who the mostly likely winner was, voted against them, and therefore could blame all problems in the world on everyone else.

People love to point fingers.

Given that the top 20 "non-corrupt" places include the USA and we Canucks, both of which have rampant corruption, that is a truly frightening chart.

I think it may be because the USA has the best financed Hollywood type media to tell us that we do not live in a corrupt society.

It's all Obama's fault.

 

[nikkkom]

Given that the top 20 "non-corrupt" places include the USA and we Canucks, both of which have rampant corruption, that is a truly frightening chart.

It's you just not knowing what real "rampant corruption" is.

For example, when you expect that winning a court case _always_ requires bribing, even if you are 100% right anyway - that's "rampant corruption". If getting a passport or a driver license _always_ requires paying bribes (in addition to official fee) - that's it.

I believe US and Canada are far from being that bad.

 

[Danger]

I believe US and Canada are far from being that bad.

Point taken (although in some parts of both countries it is that bad.)

 

[RonL]

Well I'm feeling the affects of a couple of orange vodkas and watching cooking shows with my wife and daughter, so I'm in a tender mood and must confess "I traded my vote for love".
I'm for most part republican, my wife is a "yellow dog democrat" (we are almost 30 years married, it must be love"):) not being so happy with choices this year, I voted straight line D and now I'm so high on a pedestal that I'm afraid to try getting down for fear of breaking my neck.
I don't feel I made a difference, but I did my part, I did feel my vote went to people I have the most respect for at this particular time and I hope that is the most important thing in voting.:D

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Though, we had someone here at the forum, years ago, that posted his presidential picks for the last 50 years, and it appeared he always voted for the loser. My only conclusion was that he was a pollster, knew who the mostly likely winner was, voted against them, and therefore could blame all problems in the world on everyone else.

People love to point fingers.
...

Ouch! Never trust your memory, when googling is so easy:

My voting history for President is as follows:

Nixon (2x)
Carter
Reagan (2x)
Bush Sr.
Clinton (2x)
Gore
Kerry

Perhaps I was just confused by his lack of political consistency. Rep, Dem, Rep, Rep, Dem, Dem, Dem.

That was a fun thread. I like fun threads.

It's not often I get to quote Юлий Борисович Бринер. (You-Lee-eh Borees-oh-veech Breen-air?)

 

[dlgoff]

Well I'm feeling the affects of a couple of orange vodkas and watching cooking shows with my wife and daughter, so I'm in a tender mood and must confess "I traded my vote for love".
I'm for most part republican, my wife is a "yellow dog democrat" (we are almost 30 years married, it must be love"):) not being so happy with choices this year, I voted straight line D and now I'm so high on a pedestal that I'm afraid to try getting down for fear of breaking my neck.

My girlfriend of 40+ years has money running out of her ... because she never spends it due to her reclusive ways. Probably because she meet me during the hippie days (I never had much money; still don't), yet she voted D also. Bless her soul. :k

Have a good night with your wife.

 

[Choppy]

The statement that voting is irrelevant because it is unlikely to make a difference comes off as rather arrogant in my opinion.

Not that I'm any kind of expert in political matters (nor do I particularly want to be), but as a citizen of a democratic nation I understand that one of the basic tenants of living in a democracy is that no one person is really supposed to be greater than any other. We all have certain rights. We all have certain responsibilities.

When such a statement is made, it implies not that one's vote should "make a difference" (which is never defined), rather, that if one does not have the decisive power in influencing the outcome of the election by voting, the exercise is pointless. And of course you can't have a condition where one person's vote is worth more than the rest, because if you do, you're no longer in a democracy.

If you don't appreciate your right to vote I would suggest taking some time to travel. Don't be a tourist. Travel and see some places in the world that don't (or perhaps at some time in their history did not) have the right to vote. And if you can't travel, read.

 

[nikkkom]

Point taken (although in some parts of both countries it is that bad.)

Really? I thought bribing a judge in US is a dangerous thing to do per se. Well, you can try doing that, but if you get caught, you are done. And you can't bribe your way out of it by trying to bribe e.g. FBI investigators.

Am I wrong?

 

[Danger]

Am I wrong?

From a legal standpoint, no; from a practical one, yes. Some jurisdictions are essentially owned by organized crime or big business enterprises. On the small end of that, think of "speed traps" wherein a speed limit or stop sign is hidden behind foliage and police lie in wait for someone to ignore it. Most people (usually it's in tourist areas) just pay the fine because it would cost more to stay and fight the ticket. As to more important stuff, a lot of students have been put through law school by friends or relatives in mobs, and lawyers go on to become judges, senators, etc..

 

[StatGuy2000]

From a legal standpoint, no; from a practical one, yes. Some jurisdictions are essentially owned by organized crime or big business enterprises. On the small end of that, think of "speed traps" wherein a speed limit or stop sign is hidden behind foliage and police lie in wait for someone to ignore it. Most people (usually it's in tourist areas) just pay the fine because it would cost more to stay and fight the ticket. As to more important stuff, a lot of students have been put through law school by friends or relatives in mobs, and lawyers go on to become judges, senators, etc..

I can't say whether what you state above is especially prevalent in the US (perhaps only in specific jurisdictions), but I'm quite confident that you are exaggerating greatly when you state earlier that corruption is rampant in Canada (and before you say anything else, I live in Canada and am reasonably well-informed about the political situation).

I'm not suggesting that corruption does not exist (it certainly does, as in any country in the world where people are involved in decision-making), but you should be cautious about using the word "rampant", because it implies that somehow that the "rule of law" is somehow dysfunctional in Canada, and there is no evidence that this is the case.

 

[BHL 20]

Seriously people, many of you rubbish the OP, but even though I'm not against voting I have considered this issue myself. Because it seems like such an obvious thing to want to explain rationally (without appealing to being the responsible citizen) I expected that there exists some kind of rigorous analysis of the situation, involving Game Theory or whatnot. I'm surprised to see that such a treatment does not exist.

 

[physicsshiny]

Seriously people, many of you rubbish the OP, but even though I'm not against voting I have considered this issue myself. Because it seems like such an obvious thing to want to explain rationally (without appealing to being the responsible citizen) I expected that there exists some kind of rigorous analysis of the situation, involving Game Theory or whatnot. I'm surprised to see that such a treatment does not exist.

Maybe there is and it's just that the people in this thread aren't well-versed in Game Theory...

 

[Orodruin]

I believe the bottom line is that your vote will matter even less if you do not vote.

 

[Astronuc]

If nobody sings, there will never be a chorus.

Every journey starts with the first step.

 

[Danger]

I'm quite confident that you are exaggerating greatly when you state earlier that corruption is rampant in Canada

Perhaps "rampant" is an exaggeration, but it's how I feel in proportion to what it should be. There are several instances that I can bring up, but can't provide details without looking them up. Since you probably remember them yourself, I'll just give the overhead. There have been 3 cases featured on W5 in which the RCMP Special Tac Unit executed people instead of trying to apprehend them. The most predominant one was in BC where an ex-Forces man with PTSD called the cops to remove his brother from his property because he felt threatened. All they had to do was go and visit the scene, but when they heard that a mentally-ill soldier was involved they went twisted on it. Full Code-3, body armour with automative weapons and grenades, a helicopter, no negotiator... to arrest the guy who had called them. When the guy's mother came to talk him out, she was punched out by a cop and arrested for hindering. Needless to say, when the guy came out unarmed, they shot him dead. The civilian oversight commission, which is still in existence, glanced at it and determined that there had been no wrongful action.
Then there's the itty-bitty "No Right Turn" sign under a big right-turn arrow nestled among a half-dozen others on a corner in (Winnipeg? Regina?) where cops regularly park on their "coffee breaks".
Surely I don't have to bring up the corruption situation in Quebec., bikers own the docks in Vancouver, Mike Duffy is so dirty that he should be in US politics, we kicked out Redford for fraud... and that's just widely publicized stuff from the past few months. Remember David Milgaard? 23 years in prison for an innocent man because the cops were too lazy to do their jobs.
I'm a Canuck too, and that's far from what I find acceptable. Don't get me wrong; there's no way that I would want to live anywhere else, but it should be better.

 

[jbunniii]

There was a ballot initiative in the recent election to provide additional funding for the local open space authority to acquire more land, build new trails, etc. It required a 2/3rds majority to pass; the outcome is still too close to call nearly a week after the election. If it passes, it will most likely be by a margin of only a few hundred votes (in a county of nearly 2 million people). This sort of thing is more common than one might think, and it's one good reason to vote in every election.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Perhaps "rampant" is an exaggeration, but it's how I feel in proportion to what it should be. There are several instances that I can bring up, but can't provide details without looking them up. Since you probably remember them yourself, I'll just give the overhead. There have been 3 cases featured on W5 in which the RCMP Special Tac Unit executed people instead of trying to apprehend them. The most predominant one was in BC where an ex-Forces man with PTSD called the cops to remove his brother from his property because he felt threatened. All they had to do was go and visit the scene, but when they heard that a mentally-ill soldier was involved they went twisted on it. Full Code-3, body armour with automative weapons and grenades, a helicopter, no negotiator... to arrest the guy who had called them. When the guy's mother came to talk him out, she was punched out by a cop and arrested for hindering. Needless to say, when the guy came out unarmed, they shot him dead. The civilian oversight commission, which is still in existence, glanced at it and determined that there had been no wrongful action.
Then there's the itty-bitty "No Right Turn" sign under a big right-turn arrow nestled among a half-dozen others on a corner in (Winnipeg? Regina?) where cops regularly park on their "coffee breaks".
Surely I don't have to bring up the corruption situation in Quebec., bikers own the docks in Vancouver, Mike Duffy is so dirty that he should be in US politics, we kicked out Redford for fraud... and that's just widely publicized stuff from the past few months. Remember David Milgaard? 23 years in prison for an innocent man because the cops were too lazy to do their jobs.
I'm a Canuck too, and that's far from what I find acceptable. Don't get me wrong; there's no way that I would want to live anywhere else, but it should be better.

Part of the reason why investigative journalism programs like W5 (on CTV) or The Fifth Estate (on CBC) exist is to investigate cases of abuse of power, make people aware of these, and ultimately to hold these people to account.

Yes, I understand about the corruption situation in Quebec (which has resulted in the removal of a mayor in Montreal, and further investigation at the provincial level). Also keep in mind that Redford was in fact kicked out of the job of premier for abuse of her expenditures (I'm not sure it is legally "fraud" but I get your point) -- something that in many corrupt countries will not occur. And Mike Duffy, if I'm not mistaken, is still under investigation along with other the other 2 senators in the expenses scandal. As for bikers owning the docks in Vancouver, I'm not sure if that is still the case today.

As for the "No Right Turn" signs nestled in, never seen those in Ontario.

As for David Milgaard, I think this has more to do with incompetent or faulty police investigation as opposed to outright corruption, as I've heard no evidence that police actually engaged in actual wrongdoing (and with DNA evidence now being commonly used as a part of police investigation, there is less of a chance that an injustice of this particular type will occur again).

Now are any of these things acceptable in Canadian democracy? Of course not. We in Canada can and ought to do better, and I do see some evidence that there is a push to do better.

 

[Danger]

Part of the reason why investigative journalism programs like W5 (on CTV) or The Fifth Estate (on CBC) exist is to investigate cases of abuse of power, make people aware of these, and ultimately to hold these people to account.As for David Milgaard, I think this has more to do with incompetent or faulty police investigation as opposed to outright corruption, as I've heard no evidence that police actually engaged in actual wrongdoing (and with DNA evidence now being commonly used as a part of police investigation, there is less of a chance that an injustice of this particular type will occur again).

I think that I get your point; even though things aren't right, we have remedies available while others might not. That's valid. But it still usually requires persistent snooping and digging by outsiders or political opponents. Transparency should really be transparent, not filtered through so many distortion lenses as to be unrecognizable to the average citizen. (By the bye, now that you mention it, I believe that it was "The Fifth Estate" that I saw these things on.)
The street sign thing was an example from one particular central Canada town, which is why I put the 2 possible locations in "?" form, but the southern US states are notorious for it. While "Boss Hogg" on the "The Dukes of Hazzard" was a fictional buffoon, malicious real-life versions exist.
The Milgaard case was a bit more complex than you imply, with witness tampering and whatnot, but it's been dealt with as much as possible already.
Anyway, I take your point. It's not something to argue against.

 

[nikkkom]

I think that I get your point; even though things aren't right, we have remedies available while others might not. That's valid. But it still usually requires persistent snooping and digging by outsiders or political opponents. Transparency should really be transparent, not filtered through so many distortion lenses as to be unrecognizable to the average citizen.

Expecting people in power to not try to obfuscate their shady deals would be naive. Transparency can't realistically be expected to happen automatically. Needing "snooping and digging by outsiders or political opponents" is not a bug. It's a feature.

 

[Danger]

Needing "snooping and digging by outsiders or political opponents" is not a bug. It's a feature.

I mean that the transparency should be automatic and built-in so that such digging triggered by a random whistle-blower isn't necessary. No back-room deals.

 

[nikkkom]

I mean that the transparency should be automatic and built-in so that such digging triggered by a random whistle-blower isn't necessary. No back-room deals.

How do you propose to make sure that no back-room dealing happens?

 

[Danger]

How do you propose to make sure that no back-room dealing happens?

I'm not going to try to work out a specific mechanism, but some sort of "check sum" system. If the outcome doesn't coincide with the observed input, somebody's up to no good.

 

[lisab]

From a legal standpoint, no; from a practical one, yes. Some jurisdictions are essentially owned by organized crime or big business enterprises. On the small end of that, think of "speed traps" wherein a speed limit or stop sign is hidden behind foliage and police lie in wait for someone to ignore it. Most people (usually it's in tourist areas) just pay the fine because it would cost more to stay and fight the ticket. As to more important stuff, a lot of students have been put through law school by friends or relatives in mobs, and lawyers go on to become judges, senators, etc..

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, Danger. The "speed trap" thingy is mostly myth, like an urban legend. I think this because I drive like a crazed spider monkey and I've never (knock on wood!) had a speeding ticket.

Granted I've lived most of my life on the West coast - California, Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. But I've traveled quite a lot and these "traps" are talked about vaguely everywhere, but only vaguely.

As far as organized crime or big business owning jurisdictions -- I've never seen that or heard of it.

What nikkom said is right, I think: I'd never, ever think of bribing an official here -- especially a judge !

 

[SteamKing]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, Danger. The "speed trap" thingy is mostly myth, like an urban legend. I think this because I drive like a crazed spider monkey and I've never (knock on wood!) had a speeding ticket.

Granted I've lived most of my life on the West coast - California, Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. But I've traveled quite a lot and these "traps" are talked about vaguely everywhere, but only vaguely.

You're living in the wrong places to encounter the classic speed trap, IMO. They still pop up occasionally, but the geography and the population of the town play a big part in their existence.

First and foremost, the speed trap has to be out of the way, but not so remote that people have no reason to drive thru the speed trap on their way to a more exciting or more worthy venue. Typically, the speed trap sits astride the only road from here thru the middle of nowhere to there, and it is vital that people use this road and no other to get from here to there.

Second, the people living in the speed trap depend on the revenue generated from those passing thru, who would probably not stop anyway because they're in a hurry to get to pressing business in here or there. The sheriff is going to be friends with the local magistrate and the prosecutor, or maybe related to them by blood or marriage, or he might be all three. Part of the revenue from the trap is going to keep the lights on in the sheriff's station or the courthouse or city hall or wherever. The more outside revenue can be raised from the trap, the less heavily the tax burden will fall on the locals to keep the town government running, and that's always a popular point to raise at election time.

This article discusses a journalist's rather unfortunate experience in driving thru an entire state which is effectively a speed trap: namely the Commonwealth of Virginia.

http://jalopnik.com/never-speed-in-virginia-lessons-from-my-three-days-in-1613604053

The entire state is built on the premise that speeders are inherently evil people who should be punished severely for their transgressions within its borders. The author's unfortunate experience led him to spend a weekend in stir for driving recklessly, which in the Old Dominion is a criminal charge which can result in revocation of the driver's license, a hefty fine, and/or up to one year in jail. Not the folksy hoosegow run by Sheriff Andy and his Aunt Bea in Mayberry, but a real life cross-bar hotel teeming with actual felons, like father rapers and such.