Britain is this weekend the victim of a constitutional asteroid attack. We need help. The election delivered exactly the mysterious, secretive backroom bargaining that a first-past-the-post constituency system -- as in the US house of representatives -- was supposed to avoid. It rarely fails to do so, but when as now it does the outcome is chaos.
The cause of the trouble is a paradox. By favouring the two big parties, the British system usually yields a decisive victor who can get decisions quickly delivered through a parliamentary majority. The cost is a legislature that is grossly unfair to minorities. It has just taken an average of 285,000 votes to get one Green MP into the Commons and 119,000 votes to get one Liberal Democrat. This compares with an average of 33,000 for a Conservative or Labour MP.
Yet if parliamentary representation were proportional to votes, the minority parties would almost always be able to hold the executive to ransom. The outcome can be seen in many European countries -- and in Israel. If the choice is between being unfair to minorities and unfair to the majorities, the former is surely the preferable evil.
The British constitution is rubbish. It is still what it was at the time of the American war of independence, based on the pre-democratic concept of a chamber to advise, finance and curb a hereditary monarch.
There is only one way of squaring this circle and that is a formal separation of powers, as in Washington and a myriad state and civic systems. A directly elected executive must barter its legislative programme with a proportionally elected assembly. What would in effect be a British president (with the Queen still standing aloof) would sit apart from a Commons, which would be composed of both territorial and party representatives. The executive would have to negotiate its measures with the legislature and its varied interests.
Any student of American politics is aware of the current shortcomings of a constitutional separation of powers. All I can say is that power separated is a whole lot better than power concentrated, even in a democracy. This week's election has seen Britain's concentration shattered, and it does not know which way to turn. So please tell us that separation, warts and all, is better!
Indra Adnan: Brits Want Obama-Style Change. Can They Grasp It?
With the arrival of a third party in the spotlight, there is a major chance of significant change -- not so much in the individual politician, but in the way we do politics in the United Kingdom.
Martin Lewis: UK Election 101: Harry Potter & The Half-Baked Prince Of Conservatives
Nick Clegg is now the Susan Boyle of politics. Without the Bulgarian tractor-driver's eyebrows and the public thumb-sucking. He's likely to remain the new flavor of hysteria for at least a week.
Gavin D. J. Harper: Why the Hung Parliament in UK Could Make a Greener Britain
As parties scratch around to make uneasy coalitions and alliances, I believe that green jobs and technology could provide a unifying theme that will draw together uneasy political allies.
If there would be a national primary day in the USA, with more than 2 political parties, I might consider a connection. Until then, well....
We have yet to find a good political system. From the mouth of Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried". And so, when are system falls to crap, as it inevitably does, it is time to act creatively and find something new. To hold onto, as you say, pre-democratic rules is useless and conservative. On the other hand, to look at America as if it holds any answers, or anyone else actually, is useless as their system cannot be significantly better. To prove this, just ask Americans what they think of their political system and ask the British, I'm sure you will get the same responses every time.
The British constitution is corrupt. In so far as it purports to be democracy when it isn’t. It does however permit control of the people by an elite, through use of delusion. That being, tell someone something for long enough and they will eventually accept it without question.
“So please tell us that separation, warts and all, is better!”
If the intention is for a minority to control the majority, at least have the honesty to admit as much. If you do not, then even you do not believe it justifiable. When neither reasonable nor correct, address an anomaly. If the aim is true democracy, then pursue true democracy. By making the power to pick policies a province of the people. It is claimed that the current model was devised in and exported from this country. Therefore, it was not a notion whose existence was a fact of nature. It had to be fashioned by humans. Anything arising from that origin is likely to be as flawed as the creatures creating it. And therefore in need of constant reappraisal. Why not take this opportunity to evolve a more logical system. One which, by virtue of its efficacy, will also permeate and change the world.
Or alternatively, we could just give up and stop voting altogether.
I am from Germany, and I cannot agree with you that a proportional system like we have it here necessarily enables the minority parties to hold the major parties hostage. For one, we have a 5% cut, meaning that any party that does not get at least 5% of the votes is not represented in the Bundestag (the German parliament). This was designed in order to prevent a "Weimar situation" in which the parliament is fragmented into too many tiny factions. Moreover, I think a blockade situation often is due to the political culture in general than with a fragmentation of parliamentary seats into smaller parties. As I gather from US news, the American legislature - altough it entails only 2 parties - has great difficulties passing any meaningful reform because of the pervasive obstructivism and even hatred in the political arena. If people do not behave responsibly, they will find ways to play the system, no matter what.
American system is very efficient from the plutarchy standpoint. The rich get whatever they want to the detriment of the people but people accept it all without any significant resistance because they live in illusion that whatever they get is the result of our democracy. A stealthy tyranny is much more effective and cheaper than outright tyranny but I suspect this system will sooner or later deteriorate into a more overt tyranny as more people realize what is really happening.
We have institutional checks and balances preventing any one branch of government of rising too much above others. The Founders could not have perceived that these checks and balance will be made irrelevant by an utterly parasitic outside force - corporations. There are no checks on corporations.
As both systems use the first past the post voting system both are under represented by minor parties. While the U.K. Has a moderatly successful third party (Liberal Democrates) the U.S. operates under unweilding coalitions of the right and the left trying to maintain 2 parties in a two party voting system where Ideoligically there should be atleast half a dozen.
I can only assume here that what the author is suggesting is an American style presidential system, thus seperating The Prime Minister and Cabininate from parliament. In my humble opinion that would be exchanging one flawed system for another.
My advise to the British would be as follows
1. Abolish the house of lords and create an upperhouse elected by PR
2. Change the Method of voting for the House of Commons to preferential.
The U.S. system moderates nothing except the attempted exercise of democracy by the people, who are given pabulum and told it is freedom.
And don't forget the gang of five who chose our former president for us. How'd you like that? Real pleased about how that democracy worked out are you?
There will be another election fairly soon.
Many career politicians here feel the same about the US Constitution.
Do these politicians at all resemble the ones who had no problem with the Imperial Presidency of 2001-2009?