Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***

[LabR@t]

Why all the Tory hate on here most people I guess on here are too young to remember the last Tory government?

Perhaps they should read up on the labour damage of 1970's or look at the amount of stealth taxes they have introduced or the vast swathes of bills introduced that limit our freedoms take the digital rights bill which was rushed through on the last few days of parliment!

 

[stockhausen]

Not really. Labour promised they would hold a referendum on the lisbon treaty and then didn't. ...

As I recall, because any result would have been meaningless and they couldn't see the point in wasting money on a pointless referendum.

... The tories have never promised a referendum on electoral reform.

And will not because they might actually have to change the very unfair electoral system

 

[atpbx]

And will not because they might actually have to change the very unfair electoral system

Which, as every expert and political commentator has pointed out this past few days is actually biased against them.
Why do you think this is?
Why would the tories be so in favour of a system that puts them at such a disadvantage?

 

[Amp34]

It's going to take decades to get the country back on it's feet. Total debt is much bigger than government estimates.

Ahd how do you know more about government debt than the government?

If it's going to take us decades I dread to think about the large proportion of western nations that have even bigger debts than us (especially as a large proportion of their debt isn't going to make them money, aka re privatising the banks).

 

[avec]

Interesting people say "the country voted for a hung parliament" because I don't remember seeing "hung parliament" on the ballot paper.

What actually happened was not enough people voted in the right constituencies for a specific party to gain enough seats allowing them to command a majority.

This is largely down to Labour's rigging of the system in favour of themselves.

 

[Sankari]

I am still trying to figure out why so many people voted for Labour. The Tories should have absolutely romped this one.

 

[Will Lucky]

I am still trying to figure out why so many people voted for Labour. The Tories should have absolutely romped this one.

The only guess is they were able to mobilise there entire core vote. I also believe in some constituencies Lib Dems tactically voted.

 

[chriscpritchard]

Thanks, that makes more sense now than some of the stuff I've been reading! Not quite sure I like the idea of not knowing who my vote is going to put in as an MP though.

As for the debt, I must be catching the news at the wrong time cos all I hear them going on about is PR. I'm all for a fairer system but I think the priority is to get our country back on it's feet and go from there.

There are many systems of PR. What he's talking about is closed list system. It's the most proportional, but is so at the expense of knowing who will be representing you, and it's difficult to hold individual MPs to account. Another downside is that it is hard for independents to run in one area.

The system the Lib Dems are advocating is STV (Single Transferable Vote). In this system, the country is split into constituencies, of a larger size than the current ones. Each party can field multiple candidates and you rank your preferences, this means that you can hold individual MPs to account (vote for others in your party), and independents can run. What then happens is that each elected candidate must meet a quota of votes that varies depending on the number of representatives to be elected and the number of votes. Consider this situation, where three MPs are being selected (and there are 20 unspoilt ballots):

There are 20 votes, and 3 MPs being selected, so under the most common quota (droop quota), each MP needs:

(20/(3+1))+1=6 Votes

to get a seat.

Any choice with this or more is selected, what happens next is that any surplus votes (IE, any votes above the quota) are transferred to the voters' second preference choice, then they check to see if any MPs meet or exceed the quota.

If at any point, no choice meets or exceeds the quota then the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated, and their votes transferred to the voters' second preference.

This keeps on going until all the seats are filled.

It's a bit long winded, but I think it's a good system!

 

[avec]

Why should there be potential for a candidate that a strong minority voted for as 'first choice' getting elected?

I'd sooner have a reformed version of what we currently have, perhaps with a proportional house of lords or alternate house that's directly proportional.

 

[RDM]

As I recall, because any result would have been meaningless and they couldn't see the point in wasting money on a pointless referendum.

No, Labour promised a rerferendum and then voted against having one prior to ratifying it. The Lib Dems also promised a referendum and then decided to abstain rather than vote for one. The Conservatives also promised a referendum and when it came to vote for one, did in fact honour that promise. Sadly as the other two parties decided to lie in their manifestos it didn't happen.

 

[chriscpritchard]

Why should there be potential for a candidate that a strong minority voted for as 'first choice' getting elected?

I'd sooner have a reformed version of what we currently have, perhaps with a proportional house of lords or alternate house that's directly proportional.

Because people put them as a 2nd or third choice (IE, they wouldn't have minded them), politics is about give and take, not everyone can get everything they want. Surely it's better to have someone that most people think's alright than someone that most people flat out don't want...

 

[RDM]

The system the Lib Dems are advocating is STV (Single Transferable Vote)... ...It's a bit long winded, but I think it's a good system!

My preference would be a Mixed Member Proportional. So you have two votes, one for the local MP and one for the party. The local MP is FPTP but the party vote split is then used to top up the number of seats in Parliament to make it proportional.

However before such a thing was instigated I would like a bit more in the way of reform to lessen the sort of horse trading we are currently seeing going on at the moment where it is the politicians that are actually choosing the government rather than the people. What we are seeing now is pretty much the main downside of the various types of PR as the actual decision on who forms government isn't actually made by us at all.

 

[LOAM]

I think we might see brown resign today.

 

[Will Lucky]

I think we might see brown resign today.

He is having a meeting with the senior ministers shortly, no idea what will come of it.

 

[Dolph]

My preference would be a Mixed Member Proportional. So you have two votes, one for the local MP and one for the party. The local MP is FPTP but the party vote split is then used to top up the number of seats in Parliament to make it proportional.

My preferred too.

However before such a thing was instigated I would like a bit more in the way of reform to lessen the sort of horse trading we are currently seeing going on at the moment where it is the politicians that are actually choosing the government rather than the people. What we are seeing now is pretty much the main downside of the various types of PR as the actual decision on who forms government isn't actually made by us at all.

indeed, it needs to be mandated as part of the reform that the leader of the largest party will become PM, and that the terms are fixed to prevent the risk of the government calling an election when it suits them.

 

[Lakeland]

Could it not work like this:

Local MP vote, x number of candidates for each party, local's vote, most votes wins.

Constituencies split up so they contain a similar number of people.

Once local MP's are elected for their party, an election can take place and whoever has the most elected MP's wins the election?

 

[Dolph]

Could it not work like this:

Local MP vote, x number of candidates for each party, local's vote, most votes wins.

Constituencies split up so they contain a similar number of people.

Once local MP's are elected for their party, an election can take place and whoever has the most elected MP's wins the election?

With the exception of equal consitituency sizes, you've described our current system.

 

[AGD]

As I recall, because any result would have been meaningless and they couldn't see the point in wasting money on a pointless referendum.

You recall incorrectly. If we had had a referendum and voted against the lisbon treaty then we would not have signed up to it. Labour and the lib dems didn't want a referendum on it because they thought they would lose the vote. i.e. for the same reasons that the tories don't want a referendum on pr, the only difference being that labour broke their promise whereas the tories never made one.

 

[lazer46]

GB does need to resign and quickly. He is pulling Labour down. They need to get rid of the unwanted 'Ballast'.

 

[Lakeland]

With the exception of equal consitituency sizes, you've described our current system.

Apart from currently a party has to get 50% of the seats where as I was suggesting that the part with the most seats, wins, ie conservatives would have won the election we have just had