UK Election Results 2010
- Thread starter ParadigmShifter
- Start date
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
No, we could not, because that is simply not how it works. The officer of Prime Minister is not a Presidential one, despite such tendencies in recent incumbents, nor has it ever been.
Feasible, and a similar system is already in place in the Scottish, Welsh and London regional elections, although they use multi-member constituencies with single transferable vote, and the number of proportional seats would need to be bumped up from fifty to make it much more than a token offering. The existing examples use somewhere between 1:1 and 2:1, while fifty would offer a paltry 6:1.
The only thing I don't like about MMP is that it results in people being Parliament who are party plants rather than real elected representatives. I'd prefer to see the emphasis returned to the person rather than the party. MMP only reinforces partisanship.
If Canada ever gets its act in gear (and trust me, despite all the talk about here, Britain will do it first), I'd hope that we go STV.
If Canada ever gets its act in gear (and trust me, despite all the talk about here, Britain will do it first), I'd hope that we go STV.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Okay true. You have a point. But you must admit that is it pretty silly to have the same vote for who is going to fix the potholes in your constituency to who is going to run your nation's foreign policy.
50 seats was just an example. Could the system be extended to all of UK? Though, I was just thinking how much more packed Parliament would be. Almost up to 900 representatives.
arronax, the point you really raise is that Britain, and other Westminster based countries, lack a functional Head of State. We all have one, the Queen, but due to the hereditary nature of her person, it's politically impossible for her to act.
In the "colonies", we have what is called a governor-general, traditionally described as the Queen's representative in our respective countries, but has been evolving into a more proper Head of State role. They are still unelected mind you.
My point is, the problem is not that Britain lacks a proper vote for PM, rather, it needs someone to be able to fulfill this role at a position higher than Parliament.
In the "colonies", we have what is called a governor-general, traditionally described as the Queen's representative in our respective countries, but has been evolving into a more proper Head of State role. They are still unelected mind you.
My point is, the problem is not that Britain lacks a proper vote for PM, rather, it needs someone to be able to fulfill this role at a position higher than Parliament.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Opened an aftermath thread where we can discuss how things should go from here
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=363828
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=363828
AV will have to come first, lest reform fail catastrophically as it did in BC with STV.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I don't, no. That's just how parliamentary democracy works. If anything, I'd say that the constituents of MPs with high-ranking positions are hard done by, as their MP will spend little time dealing with local issues. That said I've lived in the constituency of the MP who was Secretary of State for Defence and Scotland under Blair and Brown, and we seem no worse for it.
Anyway, "potholes" characterises things; something so particular would be a matter for a county and city councils.
I suppose that would have to be decided. It's possible that the number of constituency MPs would have to be brought down, perhaps through the use of multi-member constituencies, but that's not the end of the world. Britain has an extremely low MP:constituent ration compared to, say, an American congressman, so we could probably stand to crank it up a bit.
Mise
isle of lucy
Labour gain 15 councils, Tories lose 7 (net). http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/gains-for-labour-as-lib-con-coucils-fall/
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Some good news then.
lithium30
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2002
- Messages
- 111
While I am very happy with the local election result, in fact my local council returned back to Labour control, the problem is that the whole local government system is broken.
This was the turnout in my local ward in the last local election in 2008 32.86%.
This was the turnout for my local ward in this election which took place on the same day as the general election 67.4%.
We need to encourage people to vote in local election every year not just in General Election years.
I think we should hold local elections over the weekend, with the polls opening Saturday morning and closing Sunday night.
I also think we need to look at electronic voting systems or voting online or by text for local elections.
This was the turnout in my local ward in the last local election in 2008 32.86%.
This was the turnout for my local ward in this election which took place on the same day as the general election 67.4%.
We need to encourage people to vote in local election every year not just in General Election years.
I think we should hold local elections over the weekend, with the polls opening Saturday morning and closing Sunday night.
I also think we need to look at electronic voting systems or voting online or by text for local elections.
Not really how it works either. The people 'fixing our potholes' as you put it are the local councils (also happened on the same day as the General Election this year). MP's, in theory, represent the views of their constituency on a national level, so in many ways it is a good way of doing things as each individual pocket of the country gets to decide which way to sort it out.
One of the key things about the lib dem argument for proportional representation that annoys me is that the Liberals were never that arsed when they were getting seats 80 years ago and Labour getting none. Seems a bit like sour grapes that they're a third party now. In addition, everyone knows how the system works perhaps the Lib Dems should have put more effort into gaining new constituencies rather than just awaiting the result and complaining when they get (another) sizeable portion of the general vote but lose seats; if you don't understand how the system works then perhaps you shouldn't be running the country!
Can a party not change it's mind after 80 years?
Clearly they know how the system works; if you lived in Oxford East you would have experienced their attempts to win new constituencies first hand.
Do you think the current system is fair? Ultimately it's rather irrelevant what the Lib Dem party think. The opinions that matter are those of the public, hence a referendum.
Of course but all I was saying is that it comes across as a 'we're now losing, lets try and find another way back into it'
Well according to the polls they do not... increase in vote percentage but decrease in seats. This increase implies that a lot of areas wanted the lib dems third best throughout the country and I feel that this means that most don't want them representing their area. I feel my individual opinion would be more represented with the current system than it would be with any other.
If anything your view is overrepresented.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
PR would mean no more Tory majority governments ever.
That's something to aspire to.
That's something to aspire to.
It would doubtless help them, but a (possibly naively) don't think this is their main reason for backing it.
In a constituency in which the Lib Dems are third they will not receive negative votes against disliked parties as they have less chance of keeping out said party than the alternative with the better record, even if a voter likes the Lib Dems more. The fact that the Lib Dems got such a large proportion of the votes compared to such a small proportion of the seats merely shows that the system is broken and not particularly democratic.
On the issue of local representation: yes it's important as it gives people a designated chap through which to interact with and influence the government and it decentralizes politics away from London somewhat. However there is no reason we can't maintain local representation under a reformed, more proportional system. If that means that constituencies are larger or some MPs are not associated with a constituency then so be it; ultimately MPs vote on national issues, not local ones.
Obviously, as your opinions are that of a Labour voter and Labour benefit from the current system... but do you think the system is fair?
