Forum: Author Hangout

UK Elections for Parliament

PotomacBob 🚫

In the U.S., in elections for the House of Representatives, each contest has a geographical district with boundaries set by state legislatures (or sometimes by independent commissions whose purpose is to avoid gerrymandering.) In most districts, the candidate with the most votes wins, even if it is only a plurality of votes. A few have other means whose purpose is to make sure the winning candidate had a majority. Because of the natural distribution of partisans and also because of gerrymandering, the number of candidates elected from a particular state often do not reflect the total number of votes cast for each party in that state.
I've heard that there is a system in place in the U.K. that avoids that outcome. Is that true? If so, how does it work? Does it mean that some candidates get elected who got fewer votes than another candidate in the same district?

mimauk 🚫
Updated:

I think it is only in Northern Ireland that they have something like that - it's called Proportional Representation or something like that.

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/proportional-representation/

samsonjas 🚫
Updated:

England has the same, and as bad as, the American system. The prime minister is effectively elected by the majority of members-of-parliament, rather than an electoral college, but the thrust is the same if you view it from a thousand feet and think about outcomes. If there's a tiny advantage to the English system it's that there are is the opportunity for more parties and coalitions, which hasn't really been a thing in USA in a hundred years.

But here we are today. In the USA you have this big polarization everyone talks about. In the uk you have this government that nobody really supports, and if you look at the recent history for example brexit you would criticize it's realism were it fiction, ... except there is no opposition. So that's why it's basically a clown who has written crap books on his hero Churchill now running - or not really running - the country. Oh well. I remember when he was running to be mayor of London and we all voted for him because we thought it would be entertaining. :)

I've lived and been politically aware in several countries, and the proportional representation systems I've experienced work so much better.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@samsonjas

which hasn't really been a thing in USA in a hundred years.

More like 250 years. While who the major parties are has changed a few times, the US has never really had more than two parties viable at the national level at any one time.

Replies: samsonjas richardshagrin

samsonjas 🚫

@Dominions Son

(I was thinking Bull Moose. I think it could be argued both ways that it both was and wasn't a third force)

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@samsonjas

I was thinking Bull Moose. I think it could be argued both ways that it both was and wasn't a third force

The Progressive party (the official name of the Bull Moose party was never really a significant player at the national level.

Yes, they did manage a (distant) second place finish in the presidential election in 1912, but they never managed to elect more than a handful of congressmen.

In the 1914 mid-term House elections, they ran over 130 candidates and only 5 won.

The Progressive party promptly fell apart during the 1916 presidential election and they were never again a player on the national level.

ETA: If you want to call a party a third force in US politics, they really ought to have enough seats in either the House or the Senate so that Neither of the other parties can have a majority without their support. A strong showing in one presidential election by a popular former President doesn't cut it.

Replies: irvmull

irvmull 🚫

@Dominions Son

The Progressive [Bull Moose] party promptly fell apart during the 1916 presidential election and they were never again a player on the national level.

Yep. Only the Bull survived. DC is full of it.

richardshagrin 🚫

@Dominions Son

more than two parties viable at the national level

I seem to recall the presidential election of 1860 that resulted in President Abraham Lincoln had four parties, or at least four candidates, the Democrats split into two parties that election.

"Presidential Election of 1860: A Resource Guide
Political Party Presidential Nominee Electoral College
Republican Abraham Lincoln 180
Democratic (Southern) John Breckenridge 72
Constitutional Union John Bell 39
Democratic Stephen Douglas 12"

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@richardshagrin

I seem to recall the presidential election of 1860 that resulted in President Abraham Lincoln had four parties

1. Yes, ocassionally a "third party" or two has done relatively well in a presidential election, but they have generally been a one and done deal.

2. The real measure is how well did those other parties do in congressional elections? The answer is not nearly so well.

For the 37th Congress (March 1861 - March 1863), the Republicans had by themselves a clear majority in both the House and the Senate.

The "third parties" held only 7 seats in the Senate, and just 34 (out of 239) seats in the House. The Republican party held 107 seats in the house with between 50 and 60 seats vacant for the entire period.

Reply to topic

Forum: Author Hangout

UK Elections for Parliament

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...