评论
打印
Hello Internet The UK had an election we need to talk about because after the debates finished, the people voted and the ballots tallied the results were this:
英国举行了一场选举，我们需要谈谈，因为辩论结束后，人们进行了投票，计票结果如下：
But parliament ended up looking like this: Which isn't, exactly, representative. And by not exactly, I mean at all.
但议会最终看起来是这样的：这并不完全具有代表性。我说的不完全是，一点也没有代表性。
Red earned 30% of the vote and 36% of the seats, which is sort of close, but the rest is madness:
红色获得了30%的选票和36%的席位，这还算接近，但其余的都是疯狂的：
Orange earned 8% of the vote but got one eighth of that while Yellow's 5% just about doubled, and purple earned 13% and got squat.
橙色获得了8%的选票，但只得到了1%的席位，而黄色获得了5%的选票，议会席位几乎翻了一番，紫色获得了13%的选票，席位却一无所获。
Meanwhile blue's 37% of the people booted to 51% of the seats in parliament.
与此同时，蓝色获得了37%的选票，在议会中获得了51%的席位。
The blue boost is even bigger when you consider that 51% of the seats gives basically 100% the control. How'd this happen?
当你考虑到51%的席位基本上意味着100%的控制权时，蓝色的提升甚至更大。这是怎么回事？
In the UK -- national elections aren't really national, they're a bunch of local elections.
在英国——全国选举并不是真正的全国性选举，而是一系列地方选举。
The UK is divided into constituencies, each of which elects one member of parliament (M.P.) to represent them. This local/national divide is where the trouble begins.
英国被划分为多个选区，每个选区选举一名议员(M.P.)来代表他们。这种地方性/全国性的分歧就是问题的开始。
Imagine a parliament with just three constituencies, and it's easy to see how it wouldn't always align with citizens.
想象一下，一个只有三个选区的议会，很容易看出它并不总是与公民保持一致。
Some people think this sort of result is fine -- "it's all about winning local elections," they'll say. "Each M. P. represents their constituency."
有些人认为这种结果很好——“这都是为了赢得地方选举，”他们会说。“每名议员都代表他们的选区。”
And while the imbalance in this example is extreme, but it's the same problem in the real election and this same argument is given, but there are two more problems with it in reality land.
虽然这个例子中的不平衡是极端的，但在真正的选举中也存在同样的问题，也提出了同样的论点，但在现实中还有两个问题。
1) Few citizens have any idea who their MP is, they just know what party they voted for -- what party they want to represent their views on the national level.
1)很少有公民知道谁是他们的议员，他们只知道自己投给了哪个政党——他们希望哪个政党在国家层面代表他们的观点。
And pretending like it's a local election is a bit disingenuous. -- in practice it's an election for how the nation will run -- not really for who is going to represent a tiny part of it.
假装这是地方选举有点不诚实。——实际上，这是一场关于国家如何运作的选举——而不是真正关于谁将代表一小部分人的选举。
and even if it were 2) The individual constituencies are worse at representing their citizens than parliament. Indulge this spreadsheet-loving nerd for a moment, will you?
即使是这样2)个别选区在代表公民方面的表现也比议会差。纵容一下这个喜欢电子表格的书呆子，好吗？
The difference between what a party earned at the polls and what they got in parliament is the amount of misrepresentation error.
一个政党在投票中获得的票数和他们在议会中获得的席位之间的差异在于虚假陈述错误的数量。
If we calculate all the errors for all the parties and add them up we can say the Parliament as a whole has 47% percentage points of misrepresentation error.
如果我们计算所有政党的所有错误并将它们加起来，我们可以说整个议会的虚假陈述错误率为47%。
That sounds bad looks like a utopian rainbow of diversity compared to any local election because the local elections have one winner.
这听起来很糟糕，与任何地方选举相比，这看起来像是一道乌托邦式的多样性彩虹，因为地方选举只有一个赢家。
Out of the 650 constituencies 647 have a higher representation error than parliament.
在650个选区中，有647个选区的虚假陈述错误高于议会。
These are the only three that don't and they're really unusual for having so many of a single kind of voter in one place.
这是唯一没有出现这种情况的三个选区，而且它们真的很不寻常，因为在一个地方有这么多单一类型的选民。
Most places look the The Wrekin which is dead in the middle a mere one-hundred and one points off. Note that the winning candidate didn't reach a majority here.
大多数地方看起来就像是死在中间的雷金，只差一百零一分。请注意，获胜的候选人在这里没有获得多数票。
Which means more than half of constituencies elected their MP with a minority of voters.
这意味着超过一半的选区选出了少数选民支持的议员。
The worst is Belfast South at the bottom of the list. Hilariously unrepresentative.
最糟糕的是排名垫底的贝尔法斯特南部。极度缺乏代表性。
Less than a quarter of the voters get to speak for the entire place in parliament. This is the the lowest percentage an M. P. has ever been elected by.
不到四分之一的选民可以在议会中代表整个地方发言。这是有史以来议员获得投票比例最低的一次。
So when people argue that the UK election is a bunch of local elections 1) people don't act like it, and 2) It's even more of an argument that the elections are broken because they're worse on this level.
当人们认为英国大选是一堆地方选举时，1)人们的行为并不像地方选举那样，2)这更能说明选举之所以失败，是因为它们在这个层面上更糟糕。
These local elections are unrepresentative because of the terrible 'First Past the Post' voting system --
这些地方选举不具代表性，因为糟糕的“简单多数制”投票制度——
which I have complained mightily about and won't repeat everything here -- go watch the video -- but TLDR it only 'works' when citizens are limited to two choices.
我对此抱怨过很多次，在这里就不重复了——去看看视频吧——但它只有在公民只有两种选择时才“有效”。
Voting for any party except the biggest makes it more likely the biggest will win by a minority -- which is exactly what happened.
除了最大的政党之外，投票给任何政党都会使最大的政党更有可能以少数人的优势获胜——这正是发生的事情。
That citizens keep voting for smaller parties despite knowing the result is against their strategic interests demonstrates the citizenry wants diverse representation --
尽管公民知道选举结果违背他们的战略利益，他们仍继续投票给较小的政党，这表明公民希望获得多元化的代表权——
but that successes is the very thing that's made this the most unrepresentative parliament in the history of the UK.
但正是这种成功使得这届议会成为英国历史上最不具代表性的议会。
People happy with the results argue the system is working fine -- of course they do.
对选举结果感到满意的人们认为，这个系统运行良好——他们当然会这么认为。
Their team won. But Government isn't a sport where a singular 'winner' must be determined.
他们的球队赢了。但政府不是一项必须确定单一“赢家”的运动。
It's a system to make rules that everyone follows and so, we need a system where everyone can agree the process is fair even if the results don't go in their favor.
这是一个制定规则的系统，每个人都会遵守，因此，我们需要一个系统，在这个系统中，即使他们不喜欢这些规则，也可以确保这个过程是公平的。
If you support a system that disenfranchises people you don't like and turbo-franchises people you do --
如果你支持的制度剥夺了你不喜欢的人的选举权，却给了你喜欢的人更多的选举权——
then it doesn't look like you support representative democracy, it looks like you support a kind of dictatorship lite.
那么看起来你并不是支持代议制民主，而是支持某种形式的独裁。
Where a small group of people (including you) makes the rules for everyone.
一小部分人（包括你）为所有人制定规则。
But as it is now, on election day the more people express what they want the worse the system looks which makes them disengaged at best or angry at worst and GEE I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY.
但就像现在这样，在选举日，表达自己意愿的人越多，这个系统看起来就越糟糕，这让他们最好的时候不参与，最坏的时候感到愤怒，天哪，我无法想象为什么。
This is fixable, there are many, many better ways the UK could vote -- here are two that even keep local representatives.
这是可以解决的，英国有很多更好的投票方式——这里有两种甚至可以保留地方代表的方式。
And fixing voting really matters, because this is a kind of government illegitimacy score -- and it's been going up and may continue to do so unless this fundamentally broken voting system is changed.
操纵投票真的是个大问题，因为它降低了政府的合法性，而且可能会继续降低，除非这一点从根本上打破。
