steady as she goes
The party was formed exactly 4 years ago so it is actually amazing that they've gotten this far already.
Iceland's Pirate Party is still in with a chance of profoundly influencing Icelandic politics, after a second set of coalition talks collapsed over the weekend. Piratir, to use its Icelandic name, topped opinion polls ahead of the nation's October parliamentary elections, but emerged with about 15 per cent of the vote and ten …
Same age as Bright Future party then but older than Reform (though they are split from an existing party).
Though I think I'd need to be more educated to understand how the electoral system benefited or held the Pirate party back. As wikipedia says:
"The 63 members of the Althing were elected using closed list proportional representation in multi-member constituencies of 8 to 13 seats. Of the 63 seats, 54 were elected using constituency results and determined using the d'Hondt method. The remaining nine supplementary seats were awarded to parties that crossed the 5% national electoral threshold in order to give them a total number of seats equivalent to their national share of the vote."
"The remaining nine supplementary seats were awarded to parties that crossed the 5% national electoral threshold in order to give them a total number of seats equivalent to their national share of the vote."
Proportional representation is good. Not only does it give the majority a win, but everybody gets representation. This, of course, is only desirable if you want fairness in the system in preference to other qualities.
Of course the main problem with PR (which tends to be brushed under the carpet by its supporters) is its tendancy to result in hung parliments that result in much dirty dealing being done in smokey backrooms, in which everyone scrabbles around trying to get what they want while happily stabbing all other parties in the back. And of course coliation goverments put toether by this and subsequently held together by spit and stick-tape tend to fall apart the moment one member of the coalition feels slighted and decides to through its toys out the pram.
First-past-the-post has its faults, in fact quite a few of them, but at least it has tended to produce goverments that can actually govern.
"First-past-the-post has its faults, in fact quite a few of them, but at least it has tended to produce goverments that can actually govern."
However, it is simply unacceptable in the 21st century that the crude first past the post system can give an absolute parliamentary majority to a party on only 36% of the vote (or 25% of the wider eligible electorate) which then allows that party to force through its particular ideological agenda despite being opposed by 64% of voters. Similarly, individual MPs can win their own seats on only 26% of the vote and that has happened. These situations are equally unacceptable.
What is required is a more responsive electoral system that is some way between the current crude system and full proportionality.
"in preference to other qualities"
Such as the ability to form a government. Given that forming a government is the object of the election it's not an unreasonable preference.
As some voters have wishes directly opposed to others it should be clear that not everyone is going to be satisfied with the results of any system.
No electoral system is ever going to satisfy everyone. First-past-the-post and PR (in all of its incarnations) both have serious flaws; the real question is can the electorate tolerate those flaws (assuming of course that they are given any option).
Anyone who comes up with a perfect electoral system that keeps everyone happy will probably be an immediate candidate for political sainthood.
Our current systems have obviously been sold and bought. Of course Iceland felt the consequences of having their system sold rather more abruptly than most such that few there could ignore it. We mostly ignore it in other countries, though maybe not in the USA with Trump or Brexit.
One thing many, most in Britain at least, would agree with is the idea that democracy does not work as intended on a large scale. Handing power over to a few representatives thousands of kilometers away (or sometimes even one town over) isn't very democratic. Representatives from a different culture with a different history and different vision of your future, who are quick to sell your representation for more support or cash is a bad idea.
Large scale Representative democracy has failed, repeatedly and it is now obvious we need a different system if the people are to have their interests represented.
In the past we needed representative systems because our countries were larger than our communication systems. We could no longer gather in the town square to discuss or decide so we needed to send a Representative who would speak for us. Today the Representative speaks for many interests but the people are not one of them.
Why not let the people, at least those interested, speak? The technology exists to add a new layer, or new house or to replace the current representatives with the voice of actual people, citizens. The only reason such reforms are not considered is because those in power fear the people.
Our elite have, as they have throughout history, told us that we are ignorant fools that need to be lead and most are and accept such an argument. Others benefit so greatly from the corruption and functioning of the current systems that they have only self interest telling them that a government acting in the interests of the people is a bad idea.
So what? Give the people a say!
There is no reason why representatives have to travel to meet, there is no need to limit the number of representatives. Should there be high enough interest and good enough system we could have 1:1 representative ratios but even just moving to a system of 1:1000 would be a major improvement.
Lets give democracy one more try before accepting the oligarchy that hides behind the name of democracy.