「我離港前到過一間精神科醫院。當時有位病人禮貌地問,一個以作為世上最悠久民主政體而自傲的國家,如何能夠將此地交給一個政治制度非常不同的國家,且既沒諮詢當地公民,又沒給予他們民主的前景,好讓他們捍衞自己的將來。一個隨行同事說,奇怪,香港提出最理智問題的人,竟在精神科醫院。」彭定康 金融時報

“During a visit to a mental hospital before I left Hong Kong, a patient politely asked me how a country that prided itself on being the oldest democracy in the world had come to be handing over his city to another country with a very different system of government, without either consulting the citizens or giving them the prospect of democracy to safeguard their future. Strange, said one of my aides, that the man with the sanest question in Hong Kong is in a mental hospital.”Chris Patten Financial Times

Non Chinese literate friends, please simply switch to English Version provided by LOUSY Google Translation

Please participate in the unregistered demography survey of visitors at the right hand side bar. You are: ?

敬請參與在右下方的不記名訪客分佈調查問卷,你是: ?

Sunday, May 09, 2010

英國的簡單多數選舉制

英國的簡單多數選舉制



寫於香港時間十二日上午十時
英國的保守黨和自由民主黨合組聯合政府,保守黨黨魁 David Cameron 卡梅倫 出任新一任首相,而自由民主黨黨魁 Nick Clegg 克萊格 出任副首相。


寫於香港時間八日凌晨零時
據 BBC 新聞頻度,就649個選區已出了的結果,自由民主黨祇能得到57席失5席得23%選票,工黨得到258席失91席得29%選票,保守黨得306席增97席得36%選票,其他黨派得28席失1席得12%選票,又今屆大選重劃選區多了數個新議席。好顯然英國的選民,雖然不想出現議席三分天下,而引起“hung parliament 懸空國會”,有部份放棄了犧牲了自由民主黨。就所得選票而然,又真的是三分天下,自由民主黨的選票的百分率,比上次大選有輕微增加,祇是未能幫助他們取得三分之一的議席,反而失去5個議席。


寫於香港時間七日上午十一時
好顯然英國的選民,在看到民調結果後,不想出現議席成三分天下,而引起“hung parliament 懸空國會”,據 BBC 新聞頻度,就大約三百多個選區出了的結果,自由民主黨大脫腳,祇是得到23席,工黨得到121席,保守黨領先得150席,其他黨派得25席。


寫於香港時間七日凌晨零時
英國大選投票正在舉行中,一時三刻結果還未出來,但今次除了執政的”工黨“,和在野的”保守黨“,跑出了個”自由民主黨“,選前的民調,由兩份天下,變成三分天下。


【維基百科】英國大選的基本制度是簡單多數選舉制(First-past-the-post election system),即根據一黨所佔有的議員數量。如果一黨擁有絕對多數的議員,則此黨將組成下屆政府,該黨黨魁則成為首相。

如果沒有任何黨派擁有絕對多數席位,則合計擁有絕對多數席位的兩個或多個政黨將組成聯合政府(Coalition government),基本上其中最大黨黨魁將成為首相;或者單獨一黨成立政府,並通過與其他黨派非正式的聯盟和協議而得以延續。在缺乏多數席位的下議院中通過政府制定的法規,如其最後的數月中馬卓安政府所面對的,則是非常困難。

這項制度並不是比例代表制(Proportional representation)的一種。在全國擁有20%選票的政黨一樣可以以得到區區數個席位而收場。這使此選舉制度屢遭詬病,那些在比例代表制下將表現地更好的政黨如自由民主黨對此抨擊地更為猛烈。而另一方面,此制度的支持者則認為現有制度使得英國政治主流之外的極端黨派式微、聯合政府很少出現,並且選區同其議員有着較為直接的聯繫。



但現今英國很有可能出現三分天下的催勢,沒有一個政黨,能拿到絕大多數的下議院議席,未能成為執政黨,並不可以推舉黨魁出任首相,出現 “Hung parliament 懸空國會“。


【維基百科】 In parliamentary systems, a hung parliament is a term used by the UK media to describe a parliament in which no political party has an outright majority of seats.

This situation is normal in many legislatures with proportional representation such as the parliaments of Germany, Ireland and Italy, or in legislatures with strong regional parties; in such legislatures the term 'hung parliament' is rarely used.

However in nations in which the first-past-the-post voting system in single member districts is used to elect parliament, such as the United Kingdom, a hung parliament is a rarity, as in these circumstances one party will usually hold enough seats to form a majority, often without a plurality of votes on a national basis.

A hung parliament will usually force either a coalition government, a minority government or a dissolution of parliament.




若民調準確,很大機會出現,由一個政黨組成小數執政黨,並把黨魁推選為英國首相,不過這個執政黨祇得到三分之一的有投票選民認同,卻有三分之二的有投票選民的反對。


後記:
就議席而然,雖然保守黨得最多,但以選票來計,由一個政黨組成小數執政黨,並把黨魁推選為英國首相,不過這個執政黨祇得到三分之一的有投票選民認同,卻有三分之二的有投票選民的反對。簡單多數選舉制(First-past-the-post election system),是否一個好的選舉方法呢?


不竟“hung parliament 懸空國會”,最終未能避免,根據 BBC 在簡單多數選舉制(First-past-the-post election system),可以有多個方案,但5月25日是一個重要的日子,那是英女王發表演說闡述新政府執政重點的日期。但商談組成聯合政府可能需要一周或更長的時間,可能超越5月25日這個日子。英國政壇何往?


後後記:蔡子強﹕克萊格為何大熱倒灶﹖

【明報專訊】 昨天,隨著保守黨及自由民主黨合組聯合政府,卡梅倫拜相,上周英國大選結果所帶來「懸峙國會」(Hung Parliament)的迷霧終獲暫時掃開。

但很多人仍然心裏納悶,今次大選全英明明掀起了一陣「克萊格狂熱」(Cleggmania),4月15日首回合電視辯論之後,《泰晤士報》所進行的民意調查,顯示克萊格一鳴驚人,獲得61%的受訪者青睞,認為他表現較好,卡梅倫獲得22%,而白高敦則更僅得17%而已,大家紛紛驚嘆「a star is born」,英國變天只是一步之遙,但大選結果揭盅,自民黨竟然只拿得57個議席,比起上屆還要丟失5個,可謂極度反高潮收場。


最多人歸咎選舉制度本身
是什麼原因導致克萊格和他領導的自民黨「大熱倒灶」呢﹖
當然,最多人往往會歸咎於選舉制度本身。

英國《獨立報》5月8日的評論文章,大字標題刊出〈A result that confirms our electoral system is broken〉,猛烈批評「選舉制度的腐朽」(the rottenness of our voting system):兩大黨贏得65%的選票,但卻奪走86%的議席;小黨卻成為了犧牲品,自民黨較上屆多贏得1%的選票,但卻反而丟失5個議席。

正如筆者在拙作《香港選舉制度透視》一書中所指出:「多數決制往往最為人所詬病的地方,便是它往往不能在議席的分配上面,準確反映出各政治力量在選舉中所獲得支持選票之比例。通常大政黨(即獲較多數選票政黨)所獲得的議席比例,往往會大於其所獲選票比例,即所謂超額贏得議席(over-representation);而小政黨(即獲較少數選票政黨)所獲得的議席比例,則會反過來少於其所獲選票比例,即所謂超額喪失議席(under-representation)。之所以會出現這種狀,便是因多數決制在某個程度上來說,選舉結果有壟斷及獨佔的性質,這種情在單議席選區制下尤其嚴重。」

「看看以下的例子:在某一個選區中,A 政黨候選人取得選區中34%選票;B和C政黨的候選人則分別各取得33%,但因採用單議席選區簡單多數決制,A政黨便獨佔該個議席,而B和C政黨所各自取得的33%選票,卻一點作用也起不到。如果類似的情在全國範圍內不斷重複發生,A政黨所取得的議席比率便會遠遠高於其所得選票比率,亦即所謂超額贏得議席;相對來說,B和C政黨便會超額喪失議席。最為極端的例子,便是這樣的情在全國範圍內所有選區同一時間發生,結果A政黨只是取得低於總票數一半的34%,但卻贏得100%的議席;相反,其他兩黨總共取得66%的選票,但卻半席也分不到。」

英國《衛報》5月8日的評論文章,〈The hopes of decades rest with Clegg. He must hold his nerve〉,則指出,選民為了避免在這樣的一個選舉制度中讓自己手中的一票白白浪費掉,於是行使了策略性投票。在最後關頭,離棄了克萊格。

這也是作為第三黨的自民黨,由始至終都堅決要求,英國進行選舉制度改革,引入比例代表制的原因,甚至成了與保守黨和工黨商討組織聯合政府時,重要的談判叫價。他們要一個得票率公平反映在議席分佈的選舉制度,杜絕策略性投票等行為。

除了單議席單票制的扭曲效果之外,有關克萊格的「大熱倒灶」,還有好些有趣的觀察。

隨著「克萊格狂熱」,自民黨的民調支持度,一度衝上34%,到了投票日前夕,仍然保持在26%至29%不等,但最後投票結果,得票率卻是23%,較民調落後3%至6%,是民調並不準確﹖但有趣的是,這個現象卻並不存在於兩大黨之中。


是什麼讓選民最後變卦了?表態會支持的年輕人都留在家裏
英國《衛報》5月7日的評論文章,〈Election 2010: A cruel result for the Lib Dems〉,提出一個理由:事前聲言以及在民調中表態會支持自民黨的年輕人,結果都留在家裏,沒有走到票站投票。

這就是我常常說「GOTV」(Get-out-the-vote)的問題,不是每一個政黨,尤其是小黨,都有足夠的組織和動員能力,把潛在的支持者,轉化成為投票日真的在票站投下的選票,這需要洗樓、電話隊等催票手段和工程,這也是下周日(本月16日)補選/公投中,組織和動員能力同樣不高的公、社兩黨,急切要克服的問題。

英國《金融時報》5月8日的評論文章,〈Lib Dems agonise over fall in voter support〉,亦提出深刻的一點:「這次大選的一大教訓,就是我們不能把『國會制』與『總統制』混為一談,無論電視辯論說得如何天花龍鳳,全國如何起哄,但始終,選民到了票站,投的是一個地方選區議席,而不是全國政治領袖。」換句話說,選民到了票站,要考慮的是自民黨在該區派出之張三李四,而非他/她所心儀的克萊格。

("One of the lessons of this is that you can't graft a presidential campaign on to a parliamentary system," said a party insider. "Whatever happened in debates, whatever the national buzz, ultimately people vote in a constituency.")

有關電視辯論的效果,早於4月14日,英國廣播公司的評論文章〈Poll watch: Impact of TV debates〉,已表示並不樂觀,更斷然指出一句:「英式政治制度的基礎,是深刻建立於國會,而非總統上面。」(Britain's political system is profoundly based on a Parliament, not a presidency)



Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg: Team of rivals
《Guardian Editorial》 Things will get harder but right now the new government deserves its chance

If the British electorate wanted to be given something new in their politics when they cast their votes on 6 May, then yesterday their wishes came true. Coalition government, it suddenly seemed from the extraordinary scenes between David Cameron and Nick Clegg in the Downing Street garden, need not mean backstage stitch-ups in smoke-filled rooms after all. Instead it meant laughter on the lawns and skittish exchanges amid the wisteria to the accompaniment of birdsong in the spring sunshine. For a country reared on confrontational them-or-us yah-boo politics, the sight of the two youthful leaders swapping jokes at their lecterns as their two parties stopped pummelling and started to embrace one another was astonishing. And, yes, uplifting too. The creative political lessons of Doris Kearns Goodwin's account of Abraham Lincoln's "team of rivals" administration seemed to be coming to life in 21st-century Britain in a way that President Obama can only envy. At times it may have felt a bit too much like a scene from a Richard Curtis movie. But it was not Hugh Grant and Colin Firth at the lecterns. It was a real live new prime minister and his deputy from a rival party. Will it last? Maybe, even probably, not. But if this wasn't a glimpse of new politics, it is hard to know what those words really mean.

By last night the shape both of the deal and the cabinet that Messrs Cameron and Clegg have put together had become much clearer. As the head of the much larger party in the new coalition, Mr Cameron has kept the top jobs for the Conservatives, and confirmed the expected choices of George Osborne as chancellor, William Hague as foreign secretary, Michael Gove at education and Liam Fox at defence. But the promotion of Theresa May to the Home Office was a shrewd tack to the centre and the choice of Kenneth Clarke at justice a really bold liberal stroke, balancing the appointment of Iain Duncan Smith at work and pensions. But it is the wedge of five Liberal Democrats, taking their places around a cabinet table for the first time since the steam age, that tilts this administration even more firmly in the liberal direction. Vince Cable is now business secretary, which means that the politician who best tapped into public anger at the banks now has a shot at turning his (often sound) proposals into law; no minister in the new cabinet has a stronger right to make radical change. But Chris Huhne at energy and climate change is a strong appointment too, as is the sharp political brain of Danny Alexander as the new coalition's Scottish secretary. It is encouraging that Mr Clegg himself will oversee political reform.

Looking at these appointments against the backcloth of the coalition agreement published yesterday afternoon, it is easier to be enthused by the social liberalism in the sections on home and social policy than by the economic liberalism in the approach to the deficit and the welfare budget. The agreement is extremely promising on areas of policy such as civil liberties, the environment and political reform. But the sections on fiscal and spending policy signal an unmistakably austere immediate future. The key ministers on economic and spending policy – Mr Osborne and the key Liberal Democrat negotiator David Laws at the Treasury, alongside Mr Duncan Smith and the demoted Chris Grayling at work and pensions – are a tough quartet of determined cutters. Their work over the coming months will do much to decide whether the heady mood of the Downing Street garden yesterday, which will surely be rewarded with a quick boost in poll popularity, is going to last much beyond the autumn. Cutting the deficit need not necessarily lead to unpopularity, as Bill Clinton can vouch, but he only managed it in the context of strong sustained economic growth. The Cameron-Clegg coalition does not have any such luxury. The danger that the new government's spring budget cuts will harm the UK recovery remains very real.

The 11-section agreement is a key text. It should be studied in detail. In each section, it is clear that the Liberal Democrats have managed to make some useful mark, adding liberal resolve in areas where the Tories were halting, while at the same time mitigating some of the more unacceptable parts of the Conservatives' plans, as on Europe. Even in what for many opponents of the coalition will be the most contentious part of the agreement, the section on the deficit, the Lib Dems have secured commitments on the low-paid and on green taxes, as well as on postponing the inheritance tax plans, which have some, though perhaps not very much, moderating effect. In many other sections the Lib Dem effect is far more positive. On civil liberties and state intrusion, the environment and local government, and in particular on political reform, the Lib Dems have agreed an agenda with the Tories which does not just prevent the bad but which positively promotes the good. These sections are in many respects more radically progressive than Labour's proposals. If implemented, they will genuinely advance the cause of liberal values in British politics and society – and vindicate the Lib Dem readiness to make this deal.

The first days of a new government are rarely typical. For the moment, goodwill, good sense and good grace are much in evidence. Reasonable people will rightly accentuate the positive while remaining watchful. These are hard times and Britain faces hard choices. Inevitably the hard pounding will soon chip and bruise the new coalition's shiny novelty and generous intentions. Then the world will turn and things will get harder. Right now, however, the new government deserves its chance and the new politics its moments in the sun.



【明報專訊】翻譯:英國《衛報》5月13日社評
卡梅倫克萊格的敵對內閣
英國人已得償所願,成功革新英國的政治,保守黨和自由民主黨組成聯合政府。忽然間,英國傳統政治的針鋒相對不見了,保守黨卡梅倫和自民黨克萊格在唐寧街花園談笑風生、互相擁抱,甚至令人覺得有點詭異。林肯年代的政治,由敵對黨員組成內閣的政府,忽然在21世紀的英國復活了。

首相、財相、外相、教育大臣和國防大臣由保守黨人出任,卡梅倫也委任了立場偏向中間的黨友,擔任內政大臣、勞工大臣。自民黨於近100年來,首次有黨員加入內閣,克萊格則會負責政制改革。

新內閣的社會自由主義的色彩,令人有點振奮,特別在公民權利、環境及政制改革方面,但財政方面,毫無疑問將緊縮公共開支。在未來數月,財政部將決定政府要縮減多少開支,削減開支未必不受歡迎,正如克林頓的美國一樣,但當年美國的經濟增長強勁,與現在的英國不可同日而語,英國削減開支很可能窒礙經濟復蘇。

英國政府面臨嚴峻考驗
在兩黨協議的每個環節,都有一些自民黨的政見,平衡保守黨的主張,例如對歐洲的政策等,即使在極難妥協的赤字問題,自民黨取得聯盟承諾,例如照顧低下階層、環保稅,及延遲遺產稅的改革。

新政府的第一天,一點也不平凡,這一刻洋溢平和、朝氣勃勃的氣象。我們可以樂觀,但同時也要小心觀察。英國政府正面臨嚴峻考驗,新政府的銳氣及光環,恐怕很快被現實挫敗,碰個頭破血流,政治形勢從而改變,改革將會愈來愈難。

無論如何,我們都應該給新政府、新政治一個機會。



伸延閱覽:
英國大選 維基百科
2010年英國大選 維基百科
英國選舉制度 維基百科
Hung parliament 懸空國會 維基百科
2010 英國大選 谷歌新聞搜尋
英商界擔憂大選造成「無多數議會」 BBC網
若無政黨取得過半議席 BBC網
2010英國大選:三足鼎立,誰得天下? 鳳凰新聞網
David Cameron has become the UK's new PM BBC
克萊格為何大熱倒灶﹖ 蔡子強 雅虎新聞網
卡梅倫克萊格的敵對內閣 雅虎新聞網
Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg: Team of rivals Guardian Editorial



我的舊文:
美國的選舉人票 ~ 通吃制
我的政治 101
我的政治 101.1


14 comments:

新鮮人 said...

其實可以綜合美式和英式的做法,
初選群雄並起,
得票最高兩位再一人一票再定天下,
如初選已有人得票超過50%,
那就唔洗再選了,
咁樣可以避免懸空國會的情況!

the inner space said...

新鮮兄:英國的模式上面已經陳述不贅!
美國的總統、參議院、眾議院,是分開來選的。 選總統用選舉人票通吃制;參議院是每州兩位參議員,多數州份用簡單多數選舉制,即得最多選票者為勝,不過半也是勝利者;眾議院是根據每州人口來算,大州人口多的,多些眾議員,也是多數州份用簡單多數選舉制,即得最多選票者為勝,不過半也是勝利者。總統、參議院的大多數、眾議院的大多數,都由同一黨獨得,機會甚少,因為三個選舉互相交替,奧巴馬當選初期曾經短暫擁有這個優勢,但不久就失去了在參議院的優勢。

新鮮兄所提出方法的是指政府首長選舉還是議員議會的選舉呢?記得東歐的國家有用類似方式來選政府首長,要選幾次,勞民傷財。

上面引述【維基百科】hung parliament 都有提”This situation is normal in many legislatures with proportional representation such as the parliaments of Germany, Ireland and Italy."

讓我簡單介紹一吓德國的制度罷,在國家級的選舉,議會議席的分配分成兩部份。一半議席用簡單多數選舉制,即每一選區得最多選票者為勝,不過半也是勝利者。另一半議席是用選票的百分比,用比例代表制,分配給不同黨的候選議員。好了,當成功產生了議會,再由議會推舉出執政的總理,國會內議席最多的黨,它的黨魁成為總理,變成理所當然。在這方式產生的實權執政者,是否更具選民認受性呢?
但不過半的機會還是有的!

新鮮人 said...

我本來想說的只是總統/首相的選擇,
但愈睇愈亂了,
看來我不是搞政治的人,
政治真係唔係人人都明,
愈搞愈複雜,
有時真係好懷疑咁樣是好還是壞!!

the inner space said...

新鮮兄:但總統、首相、主席們的產生方法,有直接和間接選舉。

前者如美國,法國,做代表,而後者如英國、德國,日本,都是先選出議員,再由議員推選出首相,當然多數黨的黨魁,理所當然當上首相。

但還有中國的經過事先協商推出候選人,是等額選舉,沒有差額選舉,就和諧的多了。

新鮮人 said...

本來一人一票係最好的,
但係就經過這種方法就很容易陷入混亂,
如果大家不是為一人一己一黨私利,
不同意見嘅亙相協商讓步融合,
結果是可以很好的,
但係人往往會有私慾和偏見,
所以多數會產生亙相爭伐的局面,
使政局混亂不堪,
泰國就是其中一個例子了!

但如中國般由少部份人協商亦有問題,
權力只集中於一少撮人手中容易造成特權階級,
市民没有反對的餘地,
形成不民主的結果!

兩者各有所長所短,
但總觀而論,
我反是偏向前者,
因為無論如何有問題都好,
至少人民有權力把不好的當權者拖下來,
而內地人民則没有這種機會,
除非去到"革命"這個情況,
但一個國家要用到革命這個手段,
對整體政治、民生、經濟都會有很大的傷害,
非不得已不可亂用!

Haricot 微豆 said...

Accountability - I think that is one of the key words in politics.

the inner space said...

新鮮兄:你卒之引用泰國的動亂做例子了。黃衫軍把他信和同派者,在還未做完任期拉落台,現在紅衫軍又要將阿披實,還未做完任期推落台。何時了呢?

the inner space said...

hari big brother, ”Accountability 問責制“,要不停的換,但換來換去,都是差不多。再者任期祇四年五年,攪到政客政棍們急功近利,祇放眼下屆可以連任。正如 Gordon Brown 的刺激經濟政策,推行了不久,就因為換上 David Cameron,把已做的推到,由頭開始過;人民的忍耐力也是有限的。一方面推 push, 一方面拉 pull,政治就是這樣的吧!

新鮮人 said...

我明白你嘅意思,
泰國或者不是一個好例子,
因為她是一個民主未能熟的國家,
人民不是很理性咁選擇執政者,
所以才會有如此反來覆去的結果!
但係一個完善嘅政治制度係要經過時間洗禮,
西方國家都要經過百多年才發展出今天的體制,
東方國家現在就如一百年前中國的"西學東進"一樣,
一時間未能完全消化整體概念,
所以才出現了亂子,
當然我不是說西式民主係完美無瑕,
但人家的自由民主制度的確有我們可取之處,
相對黎睇,
點都比中式封建或者少數人把持政權來得公平和安全呀,
或許我們應該將中西式去蕪存菁,
走出一條更適合民主的道路!

the inner space said...

新鮮兄:我有細讀你在巔巔兄處發表的回應。當人民還未預備好,人民還未完全明白民主帶來的權利與責任,太多的自由和民主,可能帶來災難。

正如我有懷疑攪出五區補選變相公投的動機,還有一刀切廢除功能組別。普選立法會和一人一票特首行政長官,是否就可以終極解決香港的問題呢?I am very much doubted !!!!

故此本週日我不會去投票,也不會因為泛民和民建聯因“林彬事件“的不同傳譯,而動搖我不投票的決定。

exile said...

You aren't going to vote! I don't know enough about HK politics but my personal belief is that we should always vote when given a chance. At least when things turn bad, I can comfort myself by saying "hey, I voted, now you can ALL go to hell".

the inner space said...

Exile, it is not simply a by-election,it has another agenda behind "A referendum". "五區補選,變相公投。"

They further pushed that as "五區公投,全民起義。" so by casting my vote,AM I going to be a rebel joining a revolution, NO,of course not,我沒有打算“起義”。

新鮮人 said...

功能組別係一個略形嘅發展,
我不能接受有些人可以接兩次票,
咁樣係做就特權階級,
少數人把持大部份議席,
這個理應早廢早着!

the inner space said...

新鮮兄:參考英國製度(也可參考美國的參眾兩院制),其實立法會功能組別議員與上議院議員近似,而下議院議員就等如經普選出來的立法會議員。

香港不可能有上下議院,就將兩個議院制度 hybrid 成立法會議員,經由兩個選舉方法,選出兩批議員組成立法會。

至於“行政會議”又是一個怪胎也!