I really do not get the disadvantage with Single Transferable Vote. Everyone who want to gets to choose between the 2 most popular candidates. I find it hard to believe that it would have that much of an effect on the chance of a hung parliment than First Passed the Post, but then I know next to nothing about these things. Can anyone recomend any reading matterial (on the web) about how this system may effect the outcome of recent elections? Or anywhere?
UK Election Results 2010
- Thread starter ParadigmShifter
- Start date
I really do not get the disadvantage with Single Transferable Vote. Everyone who want to gets to choose between the 2 most popular candidates. I find it hard to believe that it would have that much of an effect on the chance of a hung parliment than First Passed the Post, but then I know next to nothing about these things. Can anyone recomend any reading matterial (on the web) about how this system may effect the outcome of recent elections? Or anywhere?
Krill
Deity
I can deal with Brown being an MP, I don't think I can deal with Brown controlling the national interests alone.
Same with any of the leaders. The point is that if LD get offered nothing, what will they do to screw over Labour or the Cons? It's not like they ave many seats to lose in the current system, so why not just be bastards?
Same with any of the leaders. The point is that if LD get offered nothing, what will they do to screw over Labour or the Cons? It's not like they ave many seats to lose in the current system, so why not just be bastards?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well, aside from anything else, it prevents any MP being elected on a mere plurality, which may not swing things one way or the other but at least is a little bit fairer.
Also, I believe that Snerk was probably suggesting a List or Regional List system, which is common in Europe, or at least some form of Additional Member System (as in Scotland and Wales). I'd certainly prefer that to a clumsy stop-gap like unaccompanied STV.
And I couldn't deal with him being turned into a fire-breathing wyrm through the ancient necromantic rite of Ushkan-Negaroth. But, as I have said, it's a parliamentary system, so neither sole governance nor draconian infero is a likely outcome.
Darth_Pugwash
wobble wobble
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,873
The electoral system is undoubtedly borked. The Lib Dems have fewer seats now than last time despite increasing their share of the vote by ~1%.
With regards to the mandate from the people, overall there were more people who voted centre-left than centre-right, if you total up the numbers from the different parties. You won't hear the Tories mentioning this much in the coming days, though.
With regards to the mandate from the people, overall there were more people who voted centre-left than centre-right, if you total up the numbers from the different parties. You won't hear the Tories mentioning this much in the coming days, though.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
When we find out which party or coalition will govern. The Prime Minister is simply the leader of the largest party, or the largest party within the largest coalition (at least, in any likely coalition; I doubt that's actually a law).
Unless your asking when that will be, in which case I'm not sure. With no outright majority, it's up to Labour to decide if they want to form a coalition or cede government to the Tories. I'm not sure if they can form a minority government themselves, but they'd be daft to try.
My take:
The Lib Dems are never going to take the Conservative's offer, especially with Gordon's promise of a referendum. They are currently stringing the Tories along while sorting out a deal for Labour. Any such deal will have to go through quickly to avoid mobilizing the Tory press.
Even though a Lib/Lab pact won't have a majority, smaller parties are likely to get behind AV/AV+ or STV so I doubt there would be trouble getting it through. I also think a referendum will come back positive. PR is very much an issue you vote for rather than against.
Labour are the interesting factor here... what they have to gain from trying to form a minority coalition is hard to see. Perhaps they will play a reform and with a new leader then call another election under the new system, making them the heralds of a new political age. Perhaps they just want to hurt the Tories with PR. Who knows...
Ting is, boundary changes to make seats a similar size is something that happens regularly already. The Conservatives "electoral reform" is something that was always going to happen after this election. :crazyeyes:
Plus, how are they going to work out how many people live in a certain constituency before next years census???
The Lib Dems are never going to take the Conservative's offer, especially with Gordon's promise of a referendum. They are currently stringing the Tories along while sorting out a deal for Labour. Any such deal will have to go through quickly to avoid mobilizing the Tory press.
Even though a Lib/Lab pact won't have a majority, smaller parties are likely to get behind AV/AV+ or STV so I doubt there would be trouble getting it through. I also think a referendum will come back positive. PR is very much an issue you vote for rather than against.
Labour are the interesting factor here... what they have to gain from trying to form a minority coalition is hard to see. Perhaps they will play a reform and with a new leader then call another election under the new system, making them the heralds of a new political age. Perhaps they just want to hurt the Tories with PR. Who knows...
The Conservatives want to make each constituency the same size, which either means splitting their big rural seats or combining labour's smaller urban seats. Either way they're just rigging it for themselves.
Ting is, boundary changes to make seats a similar size is something that happens regularly already. The Conservatives "electoral reform" is something that was always going to happen after this election. :crazyeyes:
Plus, how are they going to work out how many people live in a certain constituency before next years census???
Snerk
Smeghead
Thankfully, you have yet to fully adopt the American way of having the party leader be vastly more important than the party itself. But with comments like that, you're getting there.
There are different ways to go. As for Norway, in additional to proportional representation in multi-seat constituencies, we have the important leveling seats to help ensure proportional representation relative to the national popular share of the votes.
Yeah, AV would be the best bet, but STV would create larger regional constituencies that reduce direct MP accountability.
lolwut
Well, AV seems more likely as it's Labour's preference.
I think STV is OK personally. You get 5 (for example) local MPs to harass rather than one, and few current constituencies have issues removed from those of it's neighbour. eg. a big issue in Oxford East was support for the John Radcliffe hospital, which services a number of other constituencies as well.
Sure. The concern, however, is more pronounced in rural/large constituencies and every concern, even if it means setting your sights just a bit lower, needs to be addressed to ensure that it passes smoothly in referendum.
Snerk
Smeghead
I stopped making sense along time ago.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Couldn't the British have two separate elections for Prime Minister and for Member of Parliament? This way the Brits can decide who is the most capable man to rule the nation and their constituency.
And I was thinking about it, why not combine Britain's First Past the Post System with proportional democracy. You can have all Constituency seats decided by First Past the Post and you can have 50 - non constituency seats decided by the proportional representation.
And I was thinking about it, why not combine Britain's First Past the Post System with proportional democracy. You can have all Constituency seats decided by First Past the Post and you can have 50 - non constituency seats decided by the proportional representation.
How the hell can British people be content with a system that gives the +0.9m voters of the UK independence party 0 representatives, 57 reps to the 6.8m voters of the LD and 258 reps to the 8.6m voters of Labor?
This is how it's done in Germany on federal and states level with the difference that not only 50 but half the seats are distributed through proportional representation. There's one directly elected MP in each constituency (298 in total). 298 MPs are determined through party lists in accordance with the voting share of each party. The system is called mixed member proportional system (and personalised proportional system in Germany). That way, the distribution of seats is in total almost as proportional as a solely proportional system* and people still get to vote a local candidate of their trust.
* It's not perfectly proportional as there's a 5 % threshold for the party lists. Party's below the 5 % mark may not send anyone from their lists into the parliament. They can have directly elected MPs though.
