Dumb question about PR
10 May 2010, 12:22 PM
#32
Did you read the BNP's manifesto? SOME of it was quite sensible. Not the racist stuff, but some of the other.
And in any case, if they came 5th, that means a substantial number of people voted for them. Why SHOULDN'T they hold SOME seats? It's called democracy.
And in any case, if they came 5th, that means a substantial number of people voted for them. Why SHOULDN'T they hold SOME seats? It's called democracy.
10 May 2010, 12:59 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing about PR as is being mentioned by the LibDums at the moment is it's being sold to the electorate as a way to 'fix our broken political system'. The problem is that it's not the system that's broken it's the politicians! They are completely divorced from reality outside of the 'Westminster bubble' and pander to their own self-centred interests and not to the wishes of the electorate.
Some Labour luvvie said on an election show on Friday that the result showed that the electorate have voted for a hung parliament. I mean, WTF!!!? We voted for the 'best of a bad bunch' as none of the parties actually had a manifesto that met anything like what the majority of people would like. [By that I mean, for example, that polls consistently show that most people would like a referendum on the EU and would like us out of Afghanistan and all the other pointless wars. etc].
PR would be a disaster as the situation we have now (parties having to do deals behind closed doors and having to water down election manifestos so they barely resemble what people voted for) would become the norm. That is not the way to represent the people but that's what the LibDums want as it's the only way they will get a sniff at power. The electoral reform that's needed is to the FPTP system we have now to a) remove the fraud possibilities and b) redraw the constituencies so that each has the same population. So for a - NO postal voting (troops the only exception - and special arrangements made for those serving in battle zones so they can vote!) and proof of ID required at the polling station AND before that, when you register to vote.
Dave
Some Labour luvvie said on an election show on Friday that the result showed that the electorate have voted for a hung parliament. I mean, WTF!!!? We voted for the 'best of a bad bunch' as none of the parties actually had a manifesto that met anything like what the majority of people would like. [By that I mean, for example, that polls consistently show that most people would like a referendum on the EU and would like us out of Afghanistan and all the other pointless wars. etc].
PR would be a disaster as the situation we have now (parties having to do deals behind closed doors and having to water down election manifestos so they barely resemble what people voted for) would become the norm. That is not the way to represent the people but that's what the LibDums want as it's the only way they will get a sniff at power. The electoral reform that's needed is to the FPTP system we have now to a) remove the fraud possibilities and b) redraw the constituencies so that each has the same population. So for a - NO postal voting (troops the only exception - and special arrangements made for those serving in battle zones so they can vote!) and proof of ID required at the polling station AND before that, when you register to vote.
Dave
Why not just scrap election altogether then?
Our current system is obsurd and disenfranchises 10 of millions of people...that's the disaster!
10 May 2010, 03:11 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that the German alliance has broken down and at a fairly critical moment.
Apparently the parties had been arguing with each other ever since the alliance was formed.
==========
What about a system in UK where constituencies were slightly enlarged to reduce total number of MPs but these would be elected as usual. But you also have a number of MPs appointed without actual constituences but who represent minority interests, based on voting numbers? They could align themselves with a particular area if they wanted to and have the same rights and voting status as the "constituency MPs". Easier to understand perhaps. dl
Apparently the parties had been arguing with each other ever since the alliance was formed.
==========
What about a system in UK where constituencies were slightly enlarged to reduce total number of MPs but these would be elected as usual. But you also have a number of MPs appointed without actual constituences but who represent minority interests, based on voting numbers? They could align themselves with a particular area if they wanted to and have the same rights and voting status as the "constituency MPs". Easier to understand perhaps. dl
Last edited by David Lock; 10 May 2010 at 03:13 PM.
10 May 2010, 04:15 PM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
A read from someone who experiences it but can't vote in it so is an *interested* observer ... http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/201...sentation.html
Dave
10 May 2010, 05:52 PM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
So, you want a *fair* electoral system and PR is the way to go? Let's assume that the GE last week was held under PR and the parties got the number of seats they did. As no-one got a majority the horse-trading has to start to enable some form of 'coalition'. Hmm, sort of what's happening as we speak ...
Anyway, let's say the Tories and LibDums form a coalition and thus the next government. How is that fair on the Labour party who got 5 times as many seats as the LibDums?How about if the current talks break down and the LibDums go with Flash and his cronies to form a new government? How would that be fair on the Tories who have the largest number of seats?????
Dave
10 May 2010, 08:27 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, you want a *fair* electoral system and PR is the way to go? Let's assume that the GE last week was held under PR and the parties got the number of seats they did. As no-one got a majority the horse-trading has to start to enable some form of 'coalition'. Hmm, sort of what's happening as we speak ... Anyway, let's say the Tories and LibDums form a coalition and thus the next government. How is that fair on the Labour party who got 5 times as many seats as the LibDums?
How about if the current talks break down and the LibDums go with Flash and his cronies to form a new government? How would that be fair on the Tories who have the largest number of seats?????
Dave
Anyway, let's say the Tories and LibDums form a coalition and thus the next government. How is that fair on the Labour party who got 5 times as many seats as the LibDums?How about if the current talks break down and the LibDums go with Flash and his cronies to form a new government? How would that be fair on the Tories who have the largest number of seats?????
Dave
You either believe in democracy or you don't!
My simple solution would be at the very least to ensure that each MP secured a MAJORITY in their constituency. At the moment we're stuck with a system that encourages people to vote tactically against than positively for a candidate. We cannot carry on with MPs elected by a minority of their electorate, and governments who represent a significant minority of the national vote.
Come on man use your imagination, there has to be a better way than this?
10 May 2010, 08:43 PM
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
You either believe in democracy or you don't!
My simple solution would be at the very least to ensure that each MP secured a MAJORITY in their constituency. At the moment we're stuck with a system that encourages people to vote tactically against than positively for a candidate. We cannot carry on with MPs elected by a minority of their electorate, and governments who represent a significant minority of the national vote.
Come on man use your imagination, there has to be a better way than this?
My simple solution would be at the very least to ensure that each MP secured a MAJORITY in their constituency. At the moment we're stuck with a system that encourages people to vote tactically against than positively for a candidate. We cannot carry on with MPs elected by a minority of their electorate, and governments who represent a significant minority of the national vote.
Come on man use your imagination, there has to be a better way than this?
Dave
10 May 2010, 08:48 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. They are elected by the *majority that voted*. The only way they could DEFINITELY be elected by the *majority of the electorate* would be if voting was compulsory. Are you suggesting that? If there was a 'None of the Above' option on the ballot paper as well then I'd go with that suggestion. The way things work now is 1) parties/individuals put themselves forward for election b) they put their manifesto to the public in their constituency c) the public vote for their preferred candidate (or don't vote as is their right). What is the problem? (Apart from the procedural/fraud problems like postal voting which are easy to sort out!).
Dave
Dave
In the overwelming majority of seat MPs are elected by the minority OF THOSE WHO VOTED
Compulsory voting is an entirely separate issue, and one that I'm completely opposed to
10 May 2010, 08:57 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 May 2010, 10:41 PM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
To get a *majority* every time there can only be a maximum of two candidates standing. Do the maths, it's quite easy ......
But under your *fair* electoral system there can be as many candidates as want to stand
. I think you should get some basic maths sortedf before you argue this point any further .... Dave
10 May 2010, 11:16 PM
#46
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Terminator X; 10 May 2010 at 11:20 PM. Reason: added clicky
10 May 2010, 11:36 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. You're the one with the semantic bs. What you mean is that, of those that bothered to exercise their democratic right to vote, more voted for the winning candidate than any of the others. If the winning number of votes happens to be less than 50% then that's because there must have been more than 2 candidates who all had something to offer.
To get a *majority* every time there can only be a maximum of two candidates standing. Do the maths, it's quite easy ......
But under your *fair* electoral system there can be as many candidates as want to stand. I think you should get some basic maths sortedf before you argue this point any further ....
Dave
To get a *majority* every time there can only be a maximum of two candidates standing. Do the maths, it's quite easy ......
But under your *fair* electoral system there can be as many candidates as want to stand
. I think you should get some basic maths sortedf before you argue this point any further .... Dave
You should have to win a majority to win your seat, there are many different mechanics that will make this possible; assuming you have an imagination that is
How can it be that someone so into conspiracies and constantly complains (rightly) about the democratic deficit in the EU is quite happy for OUR SYSTEM to produce such lop-sided and anti-democratic results
Our system should reflect (as closely as is practical) the will of the electorate; this is hardly a controversial concept is it?
Last edited by Martin2005; 10 May 2010 at 11:37 PM.
11 May 2010, 07:56 AM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have a bee in your bonnet Martin. It has biased you such that you have lost sight of the original thinking behind our style of voting and which has served us better than anything else.
We are free to vote for the person we want to represent us in the House and also the party which he belongs to. It is simple and easy to understand. It is fully democratic however much you may witter on about PR.
Les
We are free to vote for the person we want to represent us in the House and also the party which he belongs to. It is simple and easy to understand. It is fully democratic however much you may witter on about PR.
Les
11 May 2010, 08:12 AM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
... How can it be that someone so into conspiracies and constantly complains (rightly) about the democratic deficit in the EU is quite happy for OUR SYSTEM to produce such lop-sided and anti-democratic results
Our system should reflect (as closely as is practical) the will of the electorate; this is hardly a controversial concept is it?
Our system should reflect (as closely as is practical) the will of the electorate; this is hardly a controversial concept is it?
Dave
11 May 2010, 08:12 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, you want a *fair* electoral system and PR is the way to go? Let's assume that the GE last week was held under PR and the parties got the number of seats they did. As no-one got a majority the horse-trading has to start to enable some form of 'coalition'. Hmm, sort of what's happening as we speak ... Anyway, let's say the Tories and LibDums form a coalition and thus the next government. How is that fair on the Labour party who got 5 times as many seats as the LibDums?
How about if the current talks break down and the LibDums go with Flash and his cronies to form a new government? How would that be fair on the Tories who have the largest number of seats?????
Dave
Anyway, let's say the Tories and LibDums form a coalition and thus the next government. How is that fair on the Labour party who got 5 times as many seats as the LibDums?How about if the current talks break down and the LibDums go with Flash and his cronies to form a new government? How would that be fair on the Tories who have the largest number of seats?????
Dave
First of all people may have voted differently. In early polls, people state a preference for Lib Dem, but when it comes to the crunch the vote is less as they know that voting for Lib Dem is a waste under FPTP as they get proportionately less seats. So the balance of votes would almost certainly be different.
Secondly under true PR Labour would not have got five times as many seats as the Lib Dems - assuming that the balance of votes was the same, the Lib Dems would have over 100 MPs and surely a right to a Parliamentary franchise.
11 May 2010, 10:35 AM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are making too many assumptions Trout.
If the Lib Dems were really wanted as a government they would have got more votes anyway.
We all voted for what we saw to be the best and that was fair and completely democratic.
Les
If the Lib Dems were really wanted as a government they would have got more votes anyway.
We all voted for what we saw to be the best and that was fair and completely democratic.
Les
11 May 2010, 11:49 AM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, you're saying that there should only be a maximum of 2 candidates for any seat? How is that fair? Any more than 2 and there is no way you can get a majority ov the electorate voting for one. Unless you're saying we should have 2nd and 3rd choices? Why should peopl ehave to vote for others, albeit in 2nd/3rd place, when they don't agree with their policies? Or are you suggesting something else? If you are please explain your maths ....
Why is it 'anti-democratic'? Explain? One person one vote has come to the conclusion, as I keep saying, that no one party had the policies that a majority of the people wanted to vote for. Easy. The 'stitch-up' is happening now between the politicians, which is a fore-taste of what would happen under PR.
Dave
Why is it 'anti-democratic'? Explain? One person one vote has come to the conclusion, as I keep saying, that no one party had the policies that a majority of the people wanted to vote for. Easy. The 'stitch-up' is happening now between the politicians, which is a fore-taste of what would happen under PR.
Dave
Then the top 2 in each seat run off in a second vote, similar to the way the French vote for their president.
That at least you garantee that each MP will be backed by the majority of voters.
The current system is anti-democratic, if you live in a safe Labour seat and supprt the Tories your vote is utterly worthless, that is about as anti0democratic as you can get
11 May 2010, 11:54 AM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have a bee in your bonnet Martin. It has biased you such that you have lost sight of the original thinking behind our style of voting and which has served us better than anything else.
We are free to vote for the person we want to represent us in the House and also the party which he belongs to. It is simple and easy to understand. It is fully democratic however much you may witter on about PR.
Les
We are free to vote for the person we want to represent us in the House and also the party which he belongs to. It is simple and easy to understand. It is fully democratic however much you may witter on about PR.
Les
The current system hasn't 'served us best' as you put it, it's served the 2 main partys best!!! There is a massive difference
11 May 2010, 12:09 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les you are conveniently ignoring the fact that most people don't even know who their MP is, they vote for a party and a manifesto. And given your one-eyed view on politics I can't imagine you voting for Jesus Christ himself if he wore a red rossette
The current system hasn't 'served us best' as you put it, it's served the 2 main partys best!!! There is a massive difference
The current system hasn't 'served us best' as you put it, it's served the 2 main partys best!!! There is a massive difference
The fact that the main parties got more votes than your heros was because that is what the country wanted!
Les
11 May 2010, 01:12 PM
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
My plan would be to have an open election across all 650 seats, in ech seat as many candidates as want to stand can stand (as per current system). That way all the crackpot parties like Monster raving looneys and UKIP can stand and have their say.
Then the top 2 in each seat run off in a second vote, similar to the way the French vote for their president.
That at least you garantee that each MP will be backed by the majority of voters.
The current system is anti-democratic, if you live in a safe Labour seat and supprt the Tories your vote is utterly worthless, that is about as anti0democratic as you can get
Then the top 2 in each seat run off in a second vote, similar to the way the French vote for their president.
That at least you garantee that each MP will be backed by the majority of voters.
The current system is anti-democratic, if you live in a safe Labour seat and supprt the Tories your vote is utterly worthless, that is about as anti0democratic as you can get
As for the current system, in your example you would get, say the Tories and Labour into the last two. With a safe Labour seat the Labour bod would still get in .....
Dave
11 May 2010, 04:00 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why vote if your candidate, with the policies you agree with, is not in it? Or are you saying voting should be compulsory?
As for the current system, in your example you would get, say the Tories and Labour into the last two. With a safe Labour seat the Labour bod would still get in .....
Dave
As for the current system, in your example you would get, say the Tories and Labour into the last two. With a safe Labour seat the Labour bod would still get in .....
Dave
Why do you find these concepts so controversial?
If the EU parliamentary electoral system was FPTP you'd be at the front of the queue complaining about the unfairness of it all
11 May 2010, 07:47 PM
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
11 May 2010, 10:01 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Umm. You don't get it do you? The current system means that the elected MP has been voted for by the majority of the people that voted! End of. If you mean they need more than 50% then, as I've said, you do need a max. of two candidates. But WHY should anyone who didn't vote for one of the two previously vote for them now???
The EU electoral system being FPTP or PR or 'which way is the wind blowing on Wednesday' is quite irrelevant to my opinion of the EU.
Dave
The EU electoral system being FPTP or PR or 'which way is the wind blowing on Wednesday' is quite irrelevant to my opinion of the EU.
Dave
Oh and answer the question will you, why is a fairer voting system so controversial?
I don't know what you are so scared of, we're going to have a referendum on a fairly watered down PR system, so no need for you to lose too much sleep
12 May 2010, 05:31 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it fair to say that if a candidate is voted for by more people in a constituency then he or she has got an undeniable majority and is fully entitled to represent the constituency in the House.
The candidate I voted for is strongly Eurosceptic which to my mind was a good reason to vote that way whatever the party in question.
Les
The candidate I voted for is strongly Eurosceptic which to my mind was a good reason to vote that way whatever the party in question.
Les
12 May 2010, 07:40 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does not work, in practice. In theory, it's wonderful. Look to Belgium and Germany to see how well "PR works". Belgium has had a "PR" type of system for decades...and they have a hung parliament regularly. When I lived there, it was every 3 months. Germany, is a fruitloop.
You can see the "benefits" of PR whereby no one party has power. OK, good, sort of. But all the minor parties, in a coalition, under PR, "negotiate". What happens is the major party, and it's lobbyitsts, "persuade" the minor parties to agree (With "beneifts").
I have seen this in New Zealand....and I can tell you it stinks.
You can see the "benefits" of PR whereby no one party has power. OK, good, sort of. But all the minor parties, in a coalition, under PR, "negotiate". What happens is the major party, and it's lobbyitsts, "persuade" the minor parties to agree (With "beneifts").
I have seen this in New Zealand....and I can tell you it stinks.