CB Saint Posted 7 May, 2011 Share Posted 7 May, 2011 Not true, if there is another hung parliament next election or perceived injustice it will come straight back. I simply can not see a situation where(if trends continue and that is in the balance right now with the Lib Dems on 15% last night) only 65% of people vote for the two main parties, to have a system which favours two party politics. I just don't see how anyone can be truly happy with a system where you can increase your share of the vote, but decrease your representation! The electoral reform battle WILL go on. Well the country have just overwhelmingly decided that FPTP is a better system than AV, so the majority of people can't be that upset with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 7 May, 2011 Share Posted 7 May, 2011 Clegg has a bloody nose ! Milliband looks a prat ! Mandelson blames electorate ! Cameron smiles smugly ! Don't ya just love these politicians ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 May, 2011 Share Posted 7 May, 2011 Yes, but in Australia the geographical challenges are much greater. In the end, I do not care if I have to wait a few more hours for results if they are fairer.Ah!. So now it's a few more hours, maybe even more than a few if the ballot has to be counted several times. But still, all this extra time will not cost a penny extra, as the personnel involved are paid per session. The electorate are getting great value from these people. I think it's a shame that we didn't go for this AV system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 7 May, 2011 Share Posted 7 May, 2011 Not true, if there is another hung parliament next election or perceived injustice it will come straight back. I simply can not see a situation where(if trends continue and that is in the balance right now with the Lib Dems on 15% last night) only 65% of people vote for the two main parties, to have a system which favours two party politics. I just don't see how anyone can be truly happy with a system where you can increase your share of the vote, but decrease your representation! The electoral reform battle WILL go on. Few people will put their name to a campaign that will end in defeat. What people fail to understand is that silent majority actually respect and are proud of our democratic traditions. That was bourne out during the Royal Wedding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 7 May, 2011 Share Posted 7 May, 2011 A massive win for the No campaign which puts electrol reform back in the box for another 20 years. Milliband, Clegg, Ashdown and the like are so out of touch with the electrate that never in a million years did they expect a defeat on this scale. The Lib/Dems had their chance when entering into the Coalition agreement, they had a chance to get the best deal possible as a condition to entering the coalition. Clowns like Cable and Ashdown and the grass roots can bleat all they want, but Clegg didn't negotiate on his own and the party had a vote on entering the coalition.They acepted the deal offered of a vote on AV. W've seen how easy they are and the turnout was pretty good so lets have a referundum on Europe a simple in or out, after all that was another manifesto promise made by the Lib/Dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 7 May, 2011 Share Posted 7 May, 2011 Well the country have just overwhelmingly decided that FPTP is a better system than AV, so the majority of people can't be that upset with it. I was talking about a referendum on PR. That would win hands down... which is why Cameron didn't allow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 7 May, 2011 Share Posted 7 May, 2011 Ah!. So now it's a few more hours, maybe even more than a few if the ballot has to be counted several times. But still, all this extra time will not cost a penny extra, as the personnel involved are paid per session. The electorate are getting great value from these people. I think it's a shame that we didn't go for this AV system. The treasury said the next election wouldn't have costed anymore under AV than it would have done under FPTP... FACT. And jesus... you want to go for a system that is broken and unfair, where you can increase share of the vote and have representation go down, where the majority of people are represented by someone they didn't vote for? And for what.... a cheaper system. HURRAY FOR DEMOCRACY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 I was talking about a referendum on PR. That would win hands down... which is why Cameron didn't allow it. I'm not so sure. A lot of people would vote tactically for the best interests of their own politcal party. For Labour and Conservative FPTP has served them well for the last 65 years, it is not in their interest to change the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 Well, the result certainly demonstrates the idiocy of the electorate. Had PR been offered the outcome might have been different. It looks like we will have to continue with our flawed voting system for years to come. If only people had voted on the relative merits of the two systems, instead of on bias and personality. That way the outcome would have been very different. Oh well, back to campaigning for a fairer democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 Well, the result certainly demonstrates the idiocy of the electorate. Had PR been offered the outcome might have been different. It looks like we will have to continue with our flawed voting system for years to come. If only people had voted on the relative merits of the two systems, instead of on bias and personality. That way the outcome would have been very different. Oh well, back to campaigning for a fairer democracy. As opposed to a wonderful example of democracy? But then I'm probably an idiot because I voted no... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 Well, the result certainly demonstrates the idiocy of the electorate. Had PR been offered the outcome might have been different. It looks like we will have to continue with our flawed voting system for years to come. If only people had voted on the relative merits of the two systems, instead of on bias and personality. That way the outcome would have been very different. Oh well, back to campaigning for a fairer democracy. You must hold yourself in very high regard. The result for PR would have been exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 Well, the result certainly demonstrates the idiocy of the electorate. Had PR been offered the outcome might have been different. It looks like we will have to continue with our flawed voting system for years to come. If only people had voted on the relative merits of the two systems, instead of on bias and personality. That way the outcome would have been very different. Oh well, back to campaigning for a fairer democracy. I did, both are flawed, but at least every vote in FPTP holds the same relative weight. Therefore no point in changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 The result for PR would have been exactly the same. Spot on. We have a system based on constituency. It means that every region of the UK has representation and that an MP's vote from the furthest part of Scotland carries the same weight as one from London. If we followed a pure PR system then a party would only need to appeal to certain areas of the Country to win, because that's where a large majority of the Country live.Even the US president is voted in by a system that ensures he has substantial support distributed throughout the U.S.How do the Highlands of Scotland or remote parts of Cornwall get decent representation, when under PR their votes would be completely irrelevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 I did, both are flawed, but at least every vote in FPTP holds the same relative weight. Therefore no point in changing. Colin, you have fallen for one of the NoToAVs little traps there. Under FPTP votes don't hold the same weight, the weight is determined by which constituency you live in. Under FPTP, your vote only really counts in a tiny number of seats. Live in say Liverpool or Sheffield (not Hallum), and irrespective of who you want to vote for, your vote doesn't count. Whereas, under AV, all votes do count, and count once. AV doesn't allow you to vote twice, whatever the No campaign may have suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 But then I'm probably an idiot because I voted no... No comment hypo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 You must hold yourself in very high regard. The result for PR would have been exactly the same. Unfortunately, you are probably right. The electorate really can be that easily manipulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 Spot on. We have a system based on constituency. It means that every region of the UK has representation and that an MP's vote from the furthest part of Scotland carries the same weight as one from London. If we followed a pure PR system then a party would only need to appeal to certain areas of the Country to win, because that's where a large majority of the Country live.Even the US president is voted in by a system that ensures he has substantial support distributed throughout the U.S.How do the Highlands of Scotland or remote parts of Cornwall get decent representation, when under PR their votes would be completely irrelevant? We sure do Lord D. Although, a system in which votes only really count in a tiny number of seats. Live in Leeds or the New Forest - whoever you vote for your vote is wasted before it has been cast. The benefit of constituencies is that local issues can be championed at a national level. However, as countries who have already progressed to PR have found, if there a votes to be won from local issues, politicians are still happy to champion them. The major drawback of constiuencies are that they dramatically skew the vote, how can it be right that a party like UKIP can receive more votes than the Green party, but end up with fewer MPs? What a mess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 So! You only want your vote to mean something, if you win? Seems to me, that with attitudes like that, we should scrap voting all together, and issue guns to everyone, for a 'I shoot faster than you' system. The person I voted for in the General Election did win. I voted for Chris Hune who campaigned using the fantastic slogan of "Labour can't win here" because our dumb voting system meant voting for who I actually believe in was pointless - great form of democracy that isn't it? The mong millions have given Clegg a kick in the nuts - bravo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 Unfortunately, you are probably right. The electorate really can be that easily manipulated. As a nation we are satisfied that our proud democratic traditions serve us fine. I love the concept that if a vote goes against you then the electorate is being manipulated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 No comment hypo. The Yes vote were soundly beaten and whether you want to dismiss everyone as an idiot who voted no or not, the fact remains that you lost and lost soundly. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 We sure do Lord D. Although, a system in which votes only really count in a tiny number of seats. Live in Leeds or the New Forest - whoever you vote for your vote is wasted before it has been cast. The benefit of constituencies is that local issues can be championed at a national level. However, as countries who have already progressed to PR have found, if there a votes to be won from local issues, politicians are still happy to champion them. The major drawback of constiuencies are that they dramatically skew the vote, how can it be right that a party like UKIP can receive more votes than the Green party, but end up with fewer MPs? What a mess! It's not perfect by any means, but I'm yet to be convinced of a better way. Certainly telling me that MP's would work harder or not fiddle their expenses is not the way and is quite frankly insulting.The adantages of a constituency system is that each MP gets 1 vote and therefore the people of Cornwall's MP's vote is the same as the people of Chelsea and Fulham. Without this link I would be worried about the long term implications of parties having to tailor policies to win the South East of England and forgetting about some of the other regions. The first thing that needs to happen is other Countries MP's stop voting on English matters that are devolved to their own Parliaments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 I was talking about a referendum on PR. That would win hands down... which is why Cameron didn't allow it. So you know for a certain fact that PR would win a referendum vote, do you? You know no such thing. It might be what you might cream yourself over, but I don't believe for one second that the voting public have any appetite for it at all. 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