Joensuu Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 So you will do away with the constituency based system? Personally, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 What is the likelihood that Proportional Representation would deliver a majority government In Briatin? Thankfully, under a PR system, there would be a much lower chance of a majority government, with the extreme swings from left to right that they deliver. Instead only the more balanced and considered policies would become legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 (edited) You still haven't answered the question, please explain your "fair" system. There are at least 30 systems more fair than FPTP. Personally I favour one of the STV variants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote Edited 10 May, 2010 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 What about Belgium? Hasn't their coalition just collapsed? I just don't want it because I believe that strong majority governments are best. Yes. Perfect demonstration on what happens when a minority government attempts to pass unpopular legislation. Quite simply, the laws that are passed need to be balanced, and thought through, not just passed because they will improve the lot of your core voter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 http://www.libdemvoice.org/what-lib-dem-members-think-about-talking-to-the-tories-ldv-poll-results-19424.html While not worried about going into an agreement with the Tories, 80% say that significant progress on electoral reform is a deal-breaker. If Clegg doesn't get a referendum on PR he will fracture the Lib Dems. He has no choice but to press harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 All this talk is academic because it's not going to happen. And I say good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/8953/coalition_talks_voting_reform_is_the_publics_fourth_priority.html This poll puts reforming the voting system as one of top priorites amongst voters (only the economy/debt, and immigration rank higher). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 All this talk is academic because it's not going to happen. And I say good. I fear you might be right with this. But I hope that for once the electorate won't be let down. If we can get a fair voting system we can start to pass fair laws, rather than partizan ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 There are at least 30 systems more fair than FPTP. Personally I favour one of the STV variants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote From what I can make out, as it's very complicated, Someone could be elected without being the first choice of any voter in that area. That doesn't seem very fair to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 From what I can make out, as it's very complicated, Someone could be elected without being the first choice of any voter in that area. That doesn't seem very fair to me. No they couldn't. If a person/party isn't the first choice of any of the voters, then this party will be the one with the least votes in the first round. As such, it will be their second choice votes which are distributed in the second round. If a party picks up no first choice votes it can't win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 No they couldn't. If a person/party isn't the first choice of any of the voters, then this party will be the one with the least votes in the first round. As such, it will be their second choice votes which are distributed in the second round. If a party picks up no first choice votes it can't win. If Party A got 49% Party B 16% Party C 15% Party D 10% Party E 10% Party B could still win, how is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 Please explain this "fair and democratic" system to me. one which does needs over 50 % to have a mandate in the country unlike a unfair one where a minority government with 36% of the vote overrules 64% of the voters. reminds me of the corrupt union barons of the 1970s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 one which does needs over 50 % to have a mandate in the country unlike a unfair one where a minority government with 36% of the vote overrules 64% of the voters. reminds me of the corrupt union barons of the 1970s. So you want to abolish the Constituency based system as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 If Party A got 49% Party B 16% Party C 15% Party D 10% Party E 10% Party B could still win, how is that fair? :confused: how do you work that out,it would only happen if party a got no votes from b c d e which would be impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 So you want to abolish the Constituency based system as well? i want people to have the power to make every vote count and a elected second chamber and surely we can come up with a britsh pr system of our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 one which does needs over 50 % to have a mandate in the country unlike a unfair one where a minority government with 36% of the vote overrules 64% of the voters. reminds me of the corrupt union barons of the 1970s. We've currently got a party who got c.20% of the vote deciding the future of the country as we speak... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 :confused: how do you work that out,it would only happen if party a got no votes from b c d e which would be impossible. So it could happen? Surely we shouldn't be electing MP's on the basis of who we dont want? If you want a constituency based system, then surely the MP should be the person who gets the most votes in that constituency. Surely the only form of pure PR is the seats being divided up into % of the vote. MP's are then selected from party lists. I would rather keep a constituency based system where we can chuck out our Portillo's ,Hamilton's and Smith's. Without constituency based MP's who is going to stick up for the local areas with small populations? Who is going to ask at PMQ's about hospital closures and local issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 (edited) If Party A got 49% Party B 16% Party C 15% Party D 10% Party E 10% Party B could still win, how is that fair? Firstly, the answer depends upon the number of seats this vote is for. If this vote is for one seat, then your example will only produce a win for Party B if all of the voters for Parties C,D & E find party B more acceptable than party A. However, as you know that outcome is very improbable, and party A are almost certain to get the seat. If this vote is for say 10 seats, then each seat will require 9% of the vote to reach the threshold. As such, party A will already have won at least 5 seats and each of the other parties will have already won a single seat each. The final seat is most likely to go to either party A or B (depending upon who picks up most second choice votes). Edited 10 May, 2010 by Joensuu Correction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 We've currently got a party who got c.20% of the vote deciding the future of the country as we speak... 23%. And thats pretty much the first time in generations that those 23% have had any form of represetation at all. Surely it's fair to give a quarter of the population a little bit of say once in a blue moon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 Firstly, the answer depends upon the number of seats this vote is for. If this vote is for one seat, then your example will only produce a win for Party B if all of the voters for Parties C,D & E find party B more acceptable than party A. However, as you know that outcome is very improbable, and party B are almost certain to get the seat. If this vote is for say 10 seats, then each seat will require 9% of the vote to reach the threashold. As such, party A will already have won at least 5 seats and each of the other parties will have already won a single seat each. The final seat is most likely to go to either party A or B (depending upon who picks up most second choice votes). Shouldn't we ensure that people take some sort of exam before being allowed to vote, because it seems a bit confusing to me. If it's for 10 seats, how do we chuck the Neil Hamilton's out at an election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 Disagree. Whatever Clegg does will be fraught with risk. But joining the Tories will discredit him with his own voters and party. If you look at Lib Dem opinion polls, they are indicating a very high percentage of Lib Dems would be disgusted with any Tory deal. In short, going with the Tories would be the end of Cleggs effective leadership. I can see his party rebelling and voting against any Tory Queen's speech. On the other hand, if he goes with Labour (but removes Brown), the Tory voters will be miffed, but the majority of Lib Dems, and the majority of the country will be much happier. Oh, and he would also get a realistic chance of putting PR to a public vote (albeit having to combat Ashcroft's undemocratic millions which would flood the country in an attempt to undermine democracy). Clegg's hands are tied. You mean you'd be happy. You're really deluding yourself if you believe that the electorate would be happy if Labour were allowed to continue, propped up by the Lib/Dems. Why don't the Lib/Dems ally themselves to the more moderate Labour element of Labour? They can call themselves the even Newer and even more Liberal and Democratic Labour Party. Then all they'd need, was for Clegg to take lessons in grinning inanely at the nearest camera a la Blair, telling the electorate that he's a pretty ordinary sort of guy and they might fool the more gullible voters to go for them the next time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 23%. And thats pretty much the first time in generations that those 23% have had any form of represetation at all. Surely it's fair to give a quarter of the population a little bit of say once in a blue moon? In the London 2012 Olympics I thnk we should give the gold medal to everyone coming third for a change. It's only "fair". There are, afterall, many more people who don't come first than those that do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 23%. And thats pretty much the first time in generations that those 23% have had any form of represetation at all. Surely it's fair to give a quarter of the population a little bit of say once in a blue moon? Shouldn't that be a quarter of those who voted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 In the London 2012 Olympics I thnk we should give the gold medal to everyone coming third for a change. It's only "fair". There are, afterall, many more people who don't come first than those that do... Isn't that how it happens in school sports days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 Lord D - Yes it's complex. Yes it's got problems, especially when it comes to the party list, but yes, it is also significantly better than we have already. Wes - Of course I will be happy if PR is the end result. I recognise Labour are unpopular, but as the election showed, so must the Tory party be (how else did they fail to win?). I suggest that had Brown not been at the helm, Labour would have retained a majority. Trousers - Love the analogy, but as you are aware it's not very accurate is it. A race is all about winning; an election is about ensuring all views are considered, and the majority have their way (not the largest minority). Whitey G - Yes. I consider my technicality corrected. Based upon the law of averages one would assume that had the all eligable voters been forced to vote outcome might have been similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 Shouldn't we ensure that people take some sort of exam before being allowed to vote, because it seems a bit confusing to me. If it's for 10 seats, how do we chuck the Neil Hamilton's out at an election? Undeniably it is more complicated to count the votes than FTP, but its not difficult to understand how to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 May, 2010 Share Posted 10 May, 2010 Whitey G - Yes. I consider my technicality corrected. Based upon the law of averages one would assume that had the all eligable voters been forced to vote outcome might have been similar. Sorry, but we all have to be careful of the pedants. We can only take account of those who voted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now