News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:UK Election: What difference would proportional represent... by danieltillett on Saturday May 09, 2015 @10:10AM (#9516415)
You are not disenfranchised. Every single person has opinions that are not supported by their community and hence their representative does not (should not) support these minority views. If you want to change things you need to convince the people around you that things need to change.

I should say I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but the solution is to change the mind of those in your community and the politics will follow.

Re:UK Election: What difference would proportional represent... by vidarh on Saturday May 09, 2015 @10:45AM (#9516493)
While I may not technically be disenfranchised, the effect is the same: My vote does not matter. My opinions will not be represented.

From my point of view, having the right to vote or not is worthless in this system, as it does not provide any influence (I accept that it matters to many others - if your views are close enough to one of the big parties, then things are different).

Democracy is about legitimacy first and foremost: If those who take part does not see the system as legitimate, it isn't legitimate. And that is not down to a majority to decide. That is down to society as a whole. And this is a lesson many "democracies" still have yet to learn. Yes, we can't get everyone to agree on what makes a legitimate system, but a system that actively shuts out millions is not legitimate whether or not a majority thinks it is.

> If you want to change things you need to convince the people around you that things need to change.

This is just pure nonsense unless you happen to live in an area that is politically homogenous and populated with people are politically relatively close to you.

We have a problem where the system is geared for a century ago when communities where geographically close. I have more in common with people politically close to me on the other side of the globe than I have with my next door neighbour (who'd like me deported since I'm not born here).

I should not need to convince a plurality of a local "community" (that doesn't exist) of my views to get a single voice in parliament if far higher number of people across the country holds the same views.

So to me, this government has no legitimate authority. I abide by laws because of the consequences of not doing so, not because I accept the legitimacy of this government.

Re:UK Election: What difference would proportional represent... by danieltillett on Saturday May 09, 2015 @06:38PM (#9517955)
A single voice in parliament unless it shared by many other is worthless. To effect change you need convince the majority that change is needed. Take marriage equality (gay marriage) as an example. This is most definitely a policy of importantace to a small minority that the majority did not once support. Over time a small core of strong supporters have been able to convince their communities of the need for change. Once the greater community is onside the political will follows.

Anyone with minority political views is always going to frustrated in a democracy. Even if every issue was voted on directly by all citizens then without the support of the majority any proposal you support will be rejected. To effect change you need to change the minds of your neighbours. The good thing about modern society is improved communication allows an individual to influence others far away and effect change on a national and international basis where once they were confined to those physically around them.