Loser becomes a winner

[rov1200]

As I understand it if Labour comes 3rd in the General Election behind the Tories and Liberals then Brown can remain in No 10 providing he has support from the Liberals. Is this democracy? Surely the winner of the election deserves to take over in government and reside in no 10. Does this make a mockery of elections as on this basis the Tories will never again rule the government?

Should the rules be changed so that an existing government cannot stay on when they don't win an election?

[sandyRoe]

People vote for a local MP, not a government. It's as likely that Cameron could form an alliance with one of the smaller parties as could Brown.
Imagine a situation where Labour got the largest number of seats in parliament but an alliance of the Conservatives and DUP ran the country. Would that be true democracy?

[jake-the-peg]

If you mean 3rd in terms of share of the vote that's possible.

But that's the way our voting system works right now. Cameron has always defended it to the hilt it'll be interesting to see if he changes his tune now that it's working against him.

Liberals are worse off though still!

Most recent poll of polls has them only getting 94 seats despite having 29% of the vote.

Of course the other way of looking at this is that Liberals are closer to Labour than the Tories and so what this is telling us is that the country generally approves of the Labour/Liberal position and don't like Cameron's new right wing agenda.

What they want is Nick Clegg and Vince cable running the Labour party

[modeller]

What is democracy ? You could argue the Lab government is not democratic as they only received 35% of the vote.

[youngmafbog]

Yes its true even if the liberal get teh most votes as per the opionion polls Brown will stay in power. No it is not democracy and its one of the few liberal policies I agree with.
Jake, I think you speaketh bolloks - as usual. The Sun did a poll that put the liberals in front, however when they also polled the liberals policies 7 out of ten of the policies were extremely disliked. Not unsurprisingly the popular one wa no tax up to 10K, however since the liberals would undoutedly have to pay for this by raising basic and higer rate most would be worse off.
The liberals have had an easy ride so far. Brown and Cameron have had to have reasonably robust and dable policies, the liberals however seem to live in cloud cukoo land. Expect both the Tories and labour to start laying into them. It wont be long before the liberals are exposed.
And, I hate to say it but I would rather have Brown in for 5 more years than the liberals. If they get in with their crazy pro europe agenda then its the end of UK plc, we will become just a state of Bruxelles. Which is where I'm off to in an hour and believe me you really dont want that.
.

[joggerjayne]

You can't measure a vote in terms of national percentage.

Proportional Representation cannot work, because a lot of constituencies would have to accept an MP for whom they had not voted.

[Old_Geezer]

The queen selects who she thinks best to form the next government. People do not vote for the government even though many seem to think they do. They vote for a representative for their area.

Of course the best person to ask is the one who appears to have most support in parliament. If a party wins an outright victory then their leader seems best choice. But if an arrangement can be formed between parties who did not get the most votes, giving them an overall majority in parliament then someone else may be best choice.

[Old_Geezer]

"Is this democracy?"

No of course not; no one has ever tried democracy yet. Do you know any country where all the citizens discuss and vote on the issues ? And the vote is binding ? The best the world offers at the moment is the option to influence who bosses the insignificant masses around for the next period.

[jno]

In 1951 Labour won 13.9 million votes and the Tories 13.7 million. And that's how Churchill returned to the prime minster's job. Funny old world.

[kayakamina]

I suppose it is possible that we could have Brown, who was never elected to lead either his party or the Government, come third in the Election but still be Prime Minister.

[rov1200]

The current situation only proves that the first past the post is now flawed. Because it was a two horse race it suited our purpose to have polar opposites and the voter could make up his mind which side of the fence he sat. That same voter is now being ignored by the marriage of convenience of Labour to an alien party that has its own agenda.

So now we are faced with a losing party calling the shots. Therefore wouldn't it make more sense if the Tories won the most seats for them decide what needs to be done?

Also as Jake points out if the Liberals got 29% of the votes they will only have 94 out of the 635 seats on offer. That can't be right!

Kayakamina is right even many Liberals want do not want Brown.

[jno]

five of the last seven Tory PMs took over without being elected; four of them didn't have an internal party election either, kayakamina. So there's nothing odd about Brown in that respect.

http://www.abc.net.au...ries/2007/1960948.htm

[jno]

PS you have to click on 'show transcript' there.

[Old_Geezer]

"The current situation only proves that the first past the post is now flawed"

On the contrary, FPTP systems are less flawed than any other system. You are making the error of thinking you are voting for a government, you are not. You are simply voting for your representative in parliament.

In is not a case of which group of people do you wish to support, it is a case of which individual do you want to represent you, to speak and vote on your behalf. And that is all you get to do. It is a mere curiosity that the representatives who pledge allegiance to one group can receive more votes overall than the representatives of another, that ends up forming a government.

And in any case, making the mistake of changing that part of the system would make no difference to the ability of the monarch to chose whomever they wish to lead their government.

What is not right is not the FPTP system, but the existence of parties in the first place. It is one thing for like minded people to get together to form agreements, as long as they continue to represent the views of their constituency. It is quite another to form an official party to apply pressure on those who join, to place the party's aims above those of the people who voted for them.

[rov1200]

Yes Geezer I put forward the same argument about choosing an MP and not a party on a recent posting. I also said that if we were to choose this method we should have 635 independent MPs. Unfortunately once elected they fall under the party whip and lose all sense of individuality. So all those clones of the party are in a straightjacket. Therefore you are not really voting for an individual but for a party and its manifesto.