ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
A designated chap?
Oxbridge has changed you
Oxbridge has changed you
UK Election Results 2010
- Thread starter ParadigmShifter
- Start date
My god what a perfect explanation. He even suggests you vote SDP/Liberal Alliance: "vote for it at the next election by voting for the SDP/Liberal Alliance - even if you never intend to vote for the Alliance again - then, if the Alliance holds the balance of power, they'll be able to force a referendum on PR".
A designated chap?
Oxbridge has changed you
Poppycock!
Perhaps then my opinion would change depending on the proposed system. I think that is an overexagerated way of looking at it though, simply saying that the Lib dems came third means that no-one dislikes them is not true. It means that they are, on the whole, liked the third most. There are only so many people which vote tactically.
I do, I feel Parliament itself needs some reform in the way that once elected (not on this occasion obviously!) that the Government effectively is an almost dictatorship till the next election but i don't think the method to solve this is PR. I feel for reasons stated that this country should be governed as a whole, that the lib dems did get a large minority of votes but then, using your argument as before, perhaps they would get a smaller percentage should it become PR as people would stop using them as their vote when they want to vote but don't know who to vote for.
In addition to this PR might ensure a larger turn out because those voters who reside in areas which are generally 'safe' seats may come out to vote, increasing the proportion of Labour/Tories but perhaps not so much the Lib dems. Higher turnout is of course a good thing but is it really worth it for the same end result? I've no idea on the cost of converting the system to PR but I can't imagine it would be cheap.
PR would also result in no more majorities, ever. Judging by the % this time around, which means coalitions would be a common theme, leading to a, justifiable, worry in the pound.
I feel the current system gives a more accurate representation of the average joe in Parliament and that this method ensures that Politicians do not become detached from society, though i do feel MP's should have a larger involvement with their local voters and if this was enforced it might ensure there being not as many 'safe' seats.
Simply because it is not the view of a more minority party? I considered the lib dems this year as a means of anti-tory but found i just didn't like some of the policies enough but i still found the system to my liking.
Have you considered alternative voting?
I'm unsure how that would be better than the current system? Presumably it would just ensure that those who are in power remain in power.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Well it would mean people could vote LibDem #1 and Labour #2 (or vice versa) and have their anti-tory opinion heard more.
Tory voters could vote UKIP or BNP #2 I guess
Tory voters could vote UKIP or BNP #2 I guess
Unless i'm mistaken you don't have to put more than one person down. So Tory voters would just continue to vote for themselves and then it'd be a battle between Labour and Lib Dems which, on the face of the last General election, Labour would still win.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
That's a good thing then.
I think.
I think.
MPs in the current system are elected by plurality. That is, persons receiving the most amount of votes, but not necessarily a majority.
AV amends this injustice by having a consensus determine who should be elected to Parliament. It does so easily within the current electoral framework by having the electorate rank candidates in their order of preference.
I understand the concept but not what difference it would actually make.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
I've come to the conclusion that Alan Johnson is the best Labour leadership candidate.
He may have been rubbish when it came to Nutt sacked etc. but that probably appeals to mainstream voters.
Milliband looks like a schoolboy and isn't old enough to look like a serious politician.
Ed Balls is too mixed up with Gordon.
Harriet Harman would be a disaster.
He may have been rubbish when it came to Nutt sacked etc. but that probably appeals to mainstream voters.
Milliband looks like a schoolboy and isn't old enough to look like a serious politician.
Ed Balls is too mixed up with Gordon.
Harriet Harman would be a disaster.
Which minority party? They are all minority parties at the moment, just some happen to gain an disproportional number of seats to votes cast.
I'm unsure as to how much you've researched the issue though, and what your personnel feelings are about the equality of voters.
I'll illustrate this in the form of an example. In Brentford & Isleworth, the Tories have won in the current system with only 37.2% of the popular vote, while Labour & Lib Dem respectively have 33.6% and 23.7%.
Lib Dem voters are generally left-leaning, so it's only natural that they would favour Labour as an alternative. Their combined votes favour Labour, and they win by a majority.
Well that's just being pedantic, i'm quite sure you understood my intention; those with a general minority view, i.e. not Labour or Tory (Based on seats).
The current system gives an accurate representation of the views of the entire country, placing emphasis on the individual views of different areas rather than the views of everyone as a whole. This gives the opportunity for different areas to have different aims and for this to be expressed in Parliament, PR in general would place the country as one voting mass but the issues affecting some factory worker in Manchester is quite different to a farmer in East Anglia. Tru mentions having the existing form of representation continued in some form of PR but i've not seen it anywhere in a workable form.
However, I would be more than happy to have the House of Lords as some form of PR body with perhaps a bit more power (to keep Government in check somewhat).
I understand but would this not ultimately lead to a two party system? As an existing base for Labour which is generally higher for the lib dems means they will overtake any marginal seats, leaving the Lib Dems with less power and Labour with more seats.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
I think a lot more people would vote LibDem #1 if they weren't so afraid of the Tories.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
As opposed to the glorious multi-party democracy which First Past the Post has provided us with?
How so? The Lib Dems would not lose any seats which they currently hold- this only grants those votes which would have been wasted anyway towards Labour- while they may even win a few Lib/Con marginals with the bonus provided by Labour voters.
And, as ParadigmShifter says, the change itself encourages a cultural shift which allows for third or fourth parties to gain influence, tipping the Liberals forward in those areas were anti-Tory sentiment held them back and perhaps winning a few seats as a result.
