how representative is parliament

[Module]

I have to write an essay on this question.
One of my paragraphs was going to be on the fact that standing for election is out of reach for most people due to financial reasons, and that the largest, wealthiest parties are at a natural advantage, and that securing large donations requires support from wealthy parts of society, companies etc.
What are some examples I could use of this?
I tried to find sources of donations on google but didn't have much luck.
How can I demonstrate these things to be true? They seem self evident to me,
(If you disagree then perhaps you could also explain why that is and provide some examples yourself ;) )

[Zanthorus]

'Representative' Government is by it's very nature unrepresentative since no single human being could ever possibly hope to represent the interests of every single member of their community since in most cases the people within their communities would have conflicting interests (When I say 'interests' I of course mean ideas on how things should be run or what should be done. These are of course quite different from actual objective interests which people can quite easily act against).

[spiltteeth]

It's very representative - of business and ruling class interests

[Nwoye]

you could talk about how vital media exposure is to success in parliamentary systems, and how the media is for the most part another appendage of the upper class. I can't speak for great britain, but in the United States the major media outlets (NBC, FOX, etc) are controlled by or receive significant financial support from large multi-national corporations. So it makes sense that only the candidates/parties who act in accordance with the interests of these groups would get media exposure and therefore influence in parliament.

tbh this is a tough idea to communicate to people who have fundamentally different political paradigms (non-radicals). I mean to everyone here it's painfully fucking obvious that the state (and it's ideological apparati like the media, education system, organized religion etc) is an organ under the control of a specific class, acting in its interests. But it's kind of tough to explain exactly how this happens to people unfamiliar with it.

[Havet]

It's very representative - of business and ruling class interests

Exactly

Here's an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQYBfyRS2qQ&feature=player_embedded

[Pogue]

I had to answer this question about 5 times last year.

I don't know how they teach you it but you should focus on about 4 areas with specific info in each.

Mention how less than 1% of MPs are a black and ethinc minority woman (ethnicity), that the average age is 50 (age), that most of them come from what are termed middle class proffesions (class), the majority went to a fee paying school (class), and the fact that the man-woman ratio is stil far from equal (gender - 80:20).

We were told to focus on these things, quoting relevant statistics. You can mention the cost but it depends on if you think you could make a solid paragraph out of it, its not something we were taught but its a good point to make.

I don't know if you want to mention the amount of people whose votes are not considered due to first past the post because thats more for the first module, but you could talk about it a bit, but the representative questions tend to mean socially representative so its probably not best to mention that here.

If you really struggle I could probably dig up some of my old stuff on this but you seem pretty smart (except for your politics ;)) so you could work this one out fine i am sure.

[Module]

Real replies I can use, please

[Pogue]

no offense guys but this isn't whats going to get her marks, i did this course and they are not interested in revolutionary socialist ideas, unfortunately.

[Pogue]

Oh, and you can mention how you think it is too, but I don't know anyone who could ever argue an essay from that basis and its not reccomended. You have to put in a point about that somewhere along the way, i.e. offer a contrasting argument. Basically, maintain some degree of balance whilst offering a clear perspective, and make sure the essay flows into the conclusion, i.e. that parliament is not socially representative.

[Module]

Okay, thanks Pogue, social representativeness is something i will also be covering, but political representativeness (including issues with fptp etc.) and economic representativeness ('class' interests) are what I actually need help on. I need examples to back up these points. I know I will be offering contrasting arguments, but I can't just state things, either way. I need examples.

you could talk about how vital media exposure is to success in parliamentary systems, and how the media is for the most part another appendage of the upper class. I can't speak for great britain, but in the United States the major media outlets (NBC, FOX, etc) are controlled by or receive significant financial support from large multi-national corporations. So it makes sense that only the candidates/parties who act in accordance with the interests of these groups would get media exposure and therefore influence in parliament.Cheers, that is something I can use

[Jazzratt]

I have to write an essay on this question.
One of my paragraphs was going to be on the fact that standing for election is out of reach for most people due to financial reasons, and that the largest, wealthiest parties are at a natural advantage, and that securing large donations requires support from wealthy parts of society, companies etc.
What are some examples I could use of this?
I tried to find sources of donations on google but didn't have much luck.
How can I demonstrate these things to be true? They seem self evident to me,
(If you disagree then perhaps you could also explain why that is and provide some examples yourself ;) )

It's difficult to answer that. I don't have any up-to-the-minute stuff on who is giving money to whom (which is I presume what you are asking?). The money issues within UK parlimentary politics rarely comes up (save for massive scandals like cash for questions and cash for honours) and seems to be pretty bloody opaque.

I guess one way of looking at it is that most people who get into parliment come from one of our heftier parties who tend to select their MPs from amongst career politicians.

Anyway, I think I've started barking up the wrong tree, anyway, so I'll leave that as is.

[Pogue]

Okay, thanks Pogue, social representativeness is something i will also be covering, but political representativeness (including issues with fptp etc.) and economic representativeness ('class' interests) are what I actually need help on. I need examples to back up these points.

Are you sure? it was stressed to us not to mention economic and political representativeness.

For economic representation you can mention the class breakdown of the members of parliament. I think something like only 30 MPs come from manufacturing backgrounds, but I can't find that right now, because it was from ages ago. You can find those stats though.

The issues with first past the post are that obviously if a candidate gets 40%, then the second place one gets 30% and the other 20% and another 10%, obviously 60% of people are not getting their view heard. Its a winner takes all situation.

For evidence of this you could find the election % vote states for any MP in the country really, its rare for them to have over 50%. Just look that up theres a myraid of examples, use your local constituency.

You can mention how the political system is dominated by 3 parties, or even 2, for example the lib dems, who if you took their supprot across th country, get something like 25% of votes but only 12% of mps due to there support being spread out and the FPTP system.

I hope this helps for now mate, I'll try and find some more stuff for you. :)

[Demogorgon]

Given the First Past The Post electoral system, the only way it can be said to be representative is that there are MPs from all geographical areas. That is it. Otherwise it does not reflect the votes of the people, nor does it have proper gender or ethnic balance. And certainly not balance in terms of social status.

That is partly down to the electoral system as I say, but it is also a natural result of capitalism. Most countries nowadays use proportional representation which means their parliaments are more reflective of society and have a much broader range of views reflected in them. But capitalism's built in defences are still very much there. They will have better demographic representation naturally and a fairer composition in terms of votes but due to the media and the like they will still keep the number of radicals to a safe minimum. Plus of course on the occasions when radicals do win control they have other means of preventing them from achieving anything (the investment strike for one).

[yuon]

How representative is parliament? Well, I guess you mean the UK parliament. How about, not at all then...

Others have described how bad first-past-the-post is, I'll just point out some specific problems from the 2005 election. Labour, with less than 37% of the vote took home over 55% of the seats. The Lib-Dems, won over 23% of the vote, but managed just under 10% of the vote. [1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005)]

So, how representative is that?

OK, what is a better system? Well, let's skip to Australia. In the federal lower house, the system used is proportional representation. In the 2007 election, the ALP received 43.4% of the vote first preference vote, and 83 out of the 150 seats. The Greens got 7.79%, but no seats, and the Nationals, 5.49% and 10 seats! That's not very representative!

And the Senate election? Well, both the ALP and the Lib/Nat coalition got about 40% of the vote, and 18 seats (out of 40) from those up for grabs. The Greens got over 9%, and three seats. Obviously proportional representation is a better system! But, well, still in no way perfect. (I didn't vote, and I didn't get a seat!)

---
clikc here for some definitions that you can reference (http://www.eca.gov.au/systems/australia/by_category/voting_definitions.htm)

:blushing:

[Module]

I don't need information about first past the post.
I need examples or statistics to do with "standing for election is out of reach for most people due to financial reasons, and that the largest, wealthiest parties are at a natural advantage, and that securing large donations requires support from wealthy parts of society, companies etc.".
I don't need people's opinions on this question.

[yuon]

Ah, well, my mistake, I misunderstood the question. OK, I don't know how it is in the UK, but I know in Australia that in Australia it is not cheap to run.


Your nomination must be accompanied by a deposit paid by cash or a cheque drawn by a bank or other financial institution on itself. Personal cheques cannot be accepted.
The deposit required is $1,000 for each Senate candidate and $500 for each House of Representatives candidate.[1] (http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/candidates/federal-election-nominate.htm)
You only get your deposit back if you get at least 4% of the vote.

So, for most people, it is beyond their means to risk that much on the possibility of getting elected. And, of course you know, once you do stand, to get any sort of vote, you need to advertise and publicise your self, and your positions, all of which can cost a lot of money.

:rolleyes:

[yuon]

OK, I just had a look at the UK electoral commission website. It's 500 pounds there. [1 pdf] (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0007/79540/UKPGE-nominations-factsheet-FINAL.pdf).

A website that says how much each party recieved in donations is [2] (http://www.ukpolitical.info/Donations.htm), in addition, they also link to the electoral commission website, assuming you have javascript enabled, you can see financial reports for the various parties from various years (possibly with who donated what).

If you have any questions, I strongly suggest contacting the electoral commission directly, and, of course, phrasing your request in neutral terms.

:cool:

[revolution inaction]

I don't need information about first past the post.
I need examples or statistics to do with "standing for election is out of reach for most people due to financial reasons, and that the largest, wealthiest parties are at a natural advantage, and that securing large donations requires support from wealthy parts of society, companies etc.".
I don't need people's opinions on this question.



if you don't like the way poeple reply then do your own homework

[Module]

I am doing my own homework.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Boff.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't know if this helps but this is a senate race from America:

CONCORD – The 2008 U.S. Senate rematch between Republican John E. Sununu and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen became the most expensive race for federal office in New Hampshire history at $16.7 million.

It falls just shy of New Hampshire's all-time high of $17.1 million that former Republican Gov. Craig Benson and his competitors set in 2002.

Benson spent $12 million on his own with more than $10 million of that coming out of his own pocket.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20081209%2FNEWS02%2F312099154%2F-1%2FXML07

$10 million from his own pocket seems pretty expensive to me.

[graffic]

I would say it's a natural result of capitalism that most MP's are going to be white, middle class and male. That doesn't necessarily help you with your homework, you could mention pressure groups and select committees give voice to other interests in parliament ensuring that MP's are more representative, despite not physically being a woman or an ethnic minority.

[Demogorgon]

I don't need information about first past the post.
I need examples or statistics to do with "standing for election is out of reach for most people due to financial reasons, and that the largest, wealthiest parties are at a natural advantage, and that securing large donations requires support from wealthy parts of society, companies etc.".
I don't need people's opinions on this question.
The question of the electoral system is inseparable from that though because single member plurality systems first of all mean that members returned will tend towards the "most acceptable group". usually white, middle aged, male protestants from a reasonably affluent background. As the system stands that is where the votes tend to centre in on. For someone not of that background to prevail they must as an individual outpoll other candidates that are of that background.

In a proportional system by contrast, more than one candidate will be returned and therefore the privileged candidates can be returned still leaving room for others as they can be elected on the basis of enough votes rather than the most votes.

Secondly in terms of the wealthiest parties prevailing, again the electoral system cannot be ignored. In order to return any members to Parliament at all the party must come first in at least one constituency and in order to have any significant number of seats must be able to do so in several, which means being able to command a significant percentage of the vote. In order to gain a considerable amount of the vote, a party must command considerable resources. Under a proportional system it can return members with much fewer votes and therefore can succeed with fewer resources.

You cannot make any serious analysis of how parliament is restricted to certain groups without examining how its members are returned.

It is not terribly difficult for anyone to stand for election. The deposit system is unfair and discriminates against poorer people, but it is not insurmountable. Generally in the UK if you want on the ballot paper it is easy enough to get there (all you need is ten signatures after all), but actually getting returned to parliament is another story altogether.

[Module]

I don't need information about first past the post.
That doesn't mean I don't need to talk about it in my essay, which I have now already written. That means I don't need information from anybody here about first past the post. I have specifically said what I needed information on, some of you have provided me with that information which of course nobody was under any obligation to do, anyway, but which I hoped people would be able to provide. That's fine, because I've now already written the essay.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

College is stressful then?

[Bud Struggle]

College is stressful then?

You should be in the House of Lords. ;)