Bad thing about FPTP is that if there are more than two candidates/parties, the winner can represent considerably less than the majority of the voters - only takes having more votes than the next guy to win (plurality). That's why FPTP tends to lead to two-party dominance and polarization (Duverger's Law). It's frankly a dumb way to do things. Should at least require a run-off election or some kind of ranked-choice or IRV system if you're gonna insist on single-member districts.
Churchill and the Empire
- Thread starter Chris Nation
- Start date
Canada has FPTP and we have had at least 3 viable parties for decades. Often more. I have to disagree as to its efficacy. It's not perfect but it keeps the governments more homogeneous (slightly less need for coalitions) while still allowing pretty strong democratic process. And I come from the side of the political spectrum that has been underrepresented in Canadian politics compared to popular vote.
I'd say in Westminster-type systems (like Canada and the UK) FPTP works slightly better than in Presidential systems like the US, but you still have two dominant parties, with minor parties usually only getting into Government when they have strong bases of regional support. Coalitions, though sometimes unstable, aren't necessarily a bad thing. Better for constituents to feel they have some presence in Government rather than none at all.
I think we can put this one down to a difference in preference. Regardless, we are drifting somewhat from the OP.
At least when Britain holds an election the result is known the next day*, and elections are decided in the polling station and not the court room.
*hung parliaments take longer but that's down to negotiations for a coalition not the electoral procedure.
Chris Nation
Banned
I don't think it's fair to say that Churchill wanted to "disrespect" Australia - he just had a somewhat antiquated view of Australia. He viewed it as an extension of Britain and should therefore fight as such.
You have a rather naive view of what Britons are concerned about. Most want to know they have a job tomorrow, not what happens to a country independent of theirs and that is the point, Australia is not "British", not since 1 January 1901...
Preferential or Optional-Preferential are my preferred voting systms. First-past-post can throw up the least favoured candidate as being the one elected, if more than two candidates run for a seat. Preferential or Optional-Preferential systems make sure that most favoured candidate gets elected. The lies which were told in the UK during the recent referendum about Preferential/Optional-Preferential systems were amazing. Australia has had Preferential for over 80 years. I noted that even American is presently experimenting with Optional-Preferential voting. It seems to be working for them.
Last edited:
Which suggests what about his views? Churchill "disrespected" that Australia was a self-governing Dominion. To him, we were still a colony and thus subject to London's will.
Chris Nation
Banned
You're vastly overstating the case for just how non-British the Australians felt during the first three quarters of the 20th century.
In 1940/41 what The Man on the Clapham Omnibus is worried about are the nasty buggers 20 miles south of Dover, Submarines in the Atlantic and if they're going to be bombed. What's happening to their cousins 12,000 miles away is very low down the list of priorities.
Last edited:
You are forgetting, many Australians were ex-British. They had left the old country because of many reasons ranging from breaking the law and being sentenced to "transportation" through to starvation. They came to Australia seeking a better life. Menzies was the exception. He saw himself to be, "British to his bootstraps". Even in 1938 that was seen as well, rather strange, by most Australians. Australia had an overall British feel but once you started looking below the surface it's attitudes were well, Australian, not British. We are a far more egalitarian society. One where class was largely immaterial. That was further reinforced by the experiences of war where we "were all in it together". There was also a large Irish immigrant population. They had no love for the British.
That feeling is often not reciprocated though.Metropolitan populations generally saw settlers as poor whites at best.
depends on the place. In Nepal FPTP has around 15 candidates on the ballot paper.
wikibox tends to only place the first 4 out of not having space for all candidates.
Bhutan had multiple in their regional elections.
I wasn't gonna jump back up on the soap-box
, but lemme get this straight.... (had to break out the calculator on this one)...If you have FIFTEEN candidates running for a seat (assuming a SMD) in a FPTP election, doesn't that mean that someone could win with 6.67%, plus 1, of the vote? That's not much of a "clear mandate from the people"
Chris Nation
Banned
Australia declined for the Statute of Westminster to be automatically applied to it in 1931 - it wouldn't be formally adopted until 1941. The idea of an Australian Governor-General was denounced in the Australian House of Representatives as "practically republican" in the the 30s. When the Queen visited in 1954, there were more Union Jacks than Australian ensigns flown to greet her. Australians were still, legally, British subjects, and other British subjects were, legally, Australian while in Australia until 1988.
Certainly the anti-British sections of the Australian population you allude to, particularly the Irish element, existed and spread throughout more of Australian society with the decline of the British Empire. However, you'll note that the above all were the case well after Gallipoli and the "lions and donkeys" mythology and those elements were fighting an uphill battle until at least the 1970s.
If you want a pro British Dominion you need to look to New Zealand. Even post war the country prided itself on being Britain in the South Pacific. Jubilee year 1977 all we 7 year olds knew God Save the Queen, I don't think any of us knew God Defend New Zealand.
Last edited:
Chris Nation
Banned
The trouble, much like with Australia, is that the Prime Ministers who happen to occupy office in all the Dominions - save South Africa - in the mid- to late-40s were, OTL, more interested in shaping the transition from Empire to Commonwealth. Perhaps that was a function of the realpolitik of the situation, but, given they were Liberal/Labor/Labour (Can, Aus, NZL respectively) I suspect it was actually more of a conviction than expediency. Interestingly, in each case they were replaced with PMs who radically disagreed with them.
Sidney Holland in New Zealand called himself a "Britisher through and through".
As noted previously, Robert Menzies in Australia described himself as "British to his bootstraps".
John Diefenbaker in Canada vehemently opposed the introduction of the Canadian Maple Leaf flag.
Which is why I'm asking this question regarding the Dominions, I suppose. In OTL, the Liberal/Labor/Labour PMs served concurrently with a Labour government in London who probably agreed with them on most things, including the reform of the Empire. How would they have instead got on with Churchill?