BBC just announced - official hung parliament

The majority were also for not-Labour, and not-Green and not-Lib Dem, etc.

Yes.  That goes without saying.  But if the majority of the those elected can form a government without the Tories, the Tories don't get to form an even minority government.

The electoral college system isn't perfect either.

I didn't even bring the American system into this let alone say the Electoral College was perfect.

Israel  has a coalition government where lots of small parties work together.

The problem with these types of governments is that it becomes easier for extremist nutters to get a say in how to run the country.

Systems like first past the post or the electoral college are supposed to make it harder for fringe parties to gain power.

Israel  has a coalition government where lots of small parties work together.

The problem with these types of governments is that it becomes easier for extremist nutters to get a say in how to run the country.

Systems like first past the post or the electoral college are supposed to make it harder for fringe parties to gain power.

Or, in the case of the UK where it is a straight FPTP system, it allows a government which would cause "dismay" in the majority of the public take power.  A few votes here and there and the Tories could have taken an outright majority.

Isreal's political climate really can't be compared to the UK, a majority progressive nation.  
ETA: I really think PR would deflate the BNP.  We might get a few MPs from them initially, but I think most would gravitate to UKIP.  A modified FPTP with the rankings might give more power to the fringe whilst diluting the power of Labour and the Tories.

ETA2: And what else the FPTP gives us are things like the expense scandal, pandering to populist or right wing sentiment and banking by Labour, and a bit of a swing to the left by the Tories, at least in their public image.  And, to be honest, pandering to the right by the Lib Dems particularly on the issue of immigration.

After 2000, I don't hold the US up as a paradigm of representative democracy, but that doesn't change the fact I can see huge flaws in a non-American system.

I can see this panning out in 1 of 2 ways.

1. Lib Dems do a deal with Tories (must likely as Tories are the highest single party) but of course they will not vote with them on everything. Labour ditch Brown and elect a new leader (David Milliband). Conservatives forced to call another election within a year as they cannot get their programme through. Labour voters that turned to Lib Dems return due to Lib Dems backing Tories and a new leader.......Labour returned.

2. Tories do a deal with SNP, on the face of it they are polls apart but if it wasn't for Scottish seats the Tories would have a majority. So a deal for independence for Scotland in return for SNP backing Tory policies. Scotland splits from the union, election called minus Scotland.....Conservatives returned.

The Tories will (probably) make an informal agreement with the Lib Dems, they'll try and do some popular things over the coming months and then we'll have a new election before October-ish and the Tories might gain a handful of seats giving them and the unionists a slim majority. Then the real cuts (and real pain and chaos) begin.

I'm fascinated by all of this.  I was listening to WBUR (NPR Boston) this morning and they've been reporting all this as well and its interesting coverage of it all. 

My co-workers are glued to BBC news with the results and keep offering up their commentary.

J and I got into a heated debate last night over it. 

Cameron's public statement/offer to the Lib Dems this far was fairly non-specific, but I guess the two will be privately talking specifics further.

Lol & thanks to LegsAkimbo for posting this photo elsewhere:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7689630/General-Election-2010-The-Key-Moments.html

(Monster Raving Loony Party guy there behind Cameron  )

Cameron's public statement/offer to the Lib Dems this far was fairly non-specific, but I guess the two will be privately talking specifics further.

Lol & thanks to LegsAkimbo for posting this photo elsewhere:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7689630/General-Election-2010-The-Key-Moments.html

(Monster Raving Loony Party guy there behind Cameron  )

I was watching that live when it was announced last night. They panned out on the stage and there was another dude down to the left who was dressed like Jesus?! I found the entire thing of them standing together on the stage when results were announced very different! (Since here, the candidates are all at their separate "camps" with their supporters.) Such a fascinating thing to watch. Thank goodness for C-Span's live feed of BBC news last night!

1. Lib Dems do a deal with Tories (must likely as Tories are the highest single party) but of course they will not vote with them on everything. Labour ditch Brown and elect a new leader (David Milliband). Conservatives forced to call another election within a year as they cannot get their programme through. Labour voters that turned to Lib Dems return due to Lib Dems backing Tories and a new leader.......Labour returned.

Oh yeah - I don't know if TykeMan or anyone else can answer this question for me...

I'm a member of a union, and so yesterday I got several text updates from the union asking me to vote Labour.  I mentioned this to DH and he said he thought that, as a union member, I would get to have some say/vote in the selection of the next Labour Party leader.  I said - 'How can that be?  I'm not a registered member of the Labour Party.'  He said he wasn't 100% sure, but he thought that union members - because of the union/Labour affiliation - got some say/vote on that.  Does anyone know about this?  It would be kind of cool if it's true! 

I found the entire thing of them standing together on the stage when results were announced very different! (Since here, the candidates are all at their separate "camps" with their supporters.) Such a fascinating thing to watch.

Yeah, a friend of mine said she felt sorry for the ones who lost having to stand there & be humiliated when the numbers were announced (I think especially if the number is low for them).  I don't know about feeling sorry - I'm probably just coldhearted.  I wouldn't have been sorry if David Cameron had had to stand there & hear he'd lost - lol!  And I for sure don't feel sorry for the BNP people.  Surely anyone who runs for office knows that's how it's going to be, so you sort of sign up for it (unless you're the winner, of course).

I'll ask Mr A when he gets home.  He's a member of a union, so he may know.

I thought that Cameron's offer could be summed up in: "I think we both have some common ground, so let's work together to get the Tory manifesto passed.  I like cake.  Mr Clegg likes cake.  We shall see if we can turn this into a strong, stable government."

I hope Clegg listens to Ming and the others about the BS about a electoral reform commission or whatever.  I am thinking most LDs won't want to go to bed with the Tories, which is probably what Clegg was expecting all along.  It's just that the LDs shouldn't be seen as an arm of the Labour party any more than the Greens now that they have a seat and will probably work with the LibDems should be seen as an arm of the LibDems.

To be fair, we're not the only ones finding the system ridiculous.  Brits themselves are.

From what I understand, the UK is the only one with this exact system.  The Aussies, for instance, have FPTP, but they also can rank their choices which makes it a lot different than here in the UK.

  The US has a first past the post system for the Senate and the House, and a weighted fptp system for Presidential elections (although obviously not a parliamentary form of government).

I didn't say that the UK were the only ones with FPTP.

ETA:  I think that it isn't a parliamentary system, has primaries, and the electoral college makes the American system a totally different system even if they are both FPTP methods.  This isn't to say that the American system is superior.  I think there are some of the same problems in both countries because of it (like the reliance on two dominant parties), but I think you can safely call them very different systems.

I'm a member of a union, and so yesterday I got several text updates from the union asking me to vote Labour.  I mentioned this to DH and he said he thought that, as a union member, I would get to have some say/vote in the selection of the next Labour Party leader.  I said - 'How can that be?  I'm not a registered member of the Labour Party.'  He said he wasn't 100% sure, but he thought that union members - because of the union/Labour affiliation - got some say/vote on that.  Does anyone know about this?  It would be kind of cool if it's true! 

Yep!

You get a vote as part of the levy-paying affiliates bloc which has a third of the votes in the leadership electoral college. The votes within that are apportioned proportionately to the size of the affiliate (which is generally a union). The second third is for party members and the last third is MPs and MEPs.

Yep!

You get a vote as part of the levy-paying affiliates bloc which has a third of the votes in the leadership electoral college. The votes within that are apportioned proportionately to the size of the affiliate (which is generally a union). The second third is for party members and the last third is MPs and MEPs.

So how does that happen?  Does the union send me something through the post?  Or?

Exciting, and thanks, peterm1988!