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

Who did you vote for?

  • Labour

    Votes: 137 13.9%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 378 38.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 304 30.9%

  • UK Independence Party

    Votes: 27 2.7%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • Scottish National Party

    Votes: 10 1.0%

  • British National Party

    Votes: 20 2.0%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • DUP

    Votes: 4 0.4%

  • UUP

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • SDLP

    Votes: 3 0.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 16 1.6%

  • Abstain

    Votes: 80 8.1%
  • Total voters
    985
  • Poll closed .
AcidHell2 said:
Just been looking at http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk

STV sounds interesting, if I understand right, similar steup to what we have now. But if your first choice has no chance of being elected you can nominate a 2nd choice which your vote will be moved to.
Click to expand...

Sort of, but it goes through a pool of candidates and positions, and votes are removed as they are used and reallocated if not. In theory you can end up 'voting' for several candidates due to the threshold criteria.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Just been looking at http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk

STV sounds interesting, if I understand right, similar steup to what we have now. But if your first choice has no chance of being elected you can nominate a 2nd choice which your vote will be moved to.
Click to expand...

I'd rather vote for the Party I wanted and for that to be added to a national total with seats being awarded accordingly. I'm really not interested in a 2nd choice.
 
I like the look of STV. One thing isn't clear to me though. Does each constituency get one MP or several? I know the constituencies will change.

Partly it's because I'm interested in policies and the candidates themselves and the party is somewhat irrelevant to me. I hate party politics in its current state. I think it's unnecessarily divisive and leads to laughing stock, constantly bickering house of commons that spends half it's time behaving like excitable school children.
 
Last edited:
Uriel said:
I like the look of STV. One thing isn't clear to me though. Does each constituency get one MP or several? I know the constituencies will change.
Click to expand...

Constituencies in STV are much larger, and have several MPs elected. There is no real link between area and representative in the same way as FPTP or PR systems like MMP.
 
Uriel said:
Partly it's because I'm interested in policies and the candidates themselves and the party is somewhat irrelevant to me. I hate party politics in its current state. I think it's unnecessarily divisive and leads to laughing stock, constantly bickering house of commons that spends half it's time behaving like excitable school children.
Click to expand...

The House of Commons has always behave liked this.
 
Wouldn't it be nice to actually be having the discussion on the best type of voting system knowing that we could actually have a say at some point, rather than being told by the Tories that we (the public) don't deserve and/or can't be trusted to have an input in how we (the public) vote for our representatives :)

I'm interested in how UKIP will react if the Tories reject voting reform - I get the impression they and their supporters aren't particularly fans of Cameron as it is and are of course in favour of PR in the form of AVplus, as can be seen in their manifesto.
 
Last edited:
Rich_L said:
Wouldn't it be nice to actually be having the discussion on the best type of voting system knowing that we could actually have a say at some point, rather than being told by the Tories that we (the public) don't deserve and/or can't be trusted to have an input in how we (the public) vote for our representatives :)
Click to expand...

trouble is that doesn't happen as the majority just vote on what they have been told or just make it up. How many people actually would sit down and research. Same as a referendum on EU. People would vote, without a clue of what they are voting for.
 
It would be nice if governments weren't allowed to interfere with the electoral system and we had a seperate independant body to reform the electoral system as parties don't care about what's best for the country, only what's best for themselves.
 
slightly encouraging

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100509/tuk-tories-and-lib-dems-nearer-deal-6323e80.html
In comments apparently designed to reassure the financial markets, Mr Clegg's chief of staff Danny Alexander stressed that the centrepiece of any deal would be a plan to tackle Britain's record £163 billion deficit.

"Any agreement made will have deficit reduction and a credible plan for controlling economic stability at its heart," he said.
Click to expand...

Would be nice if it was about debt and economy and not PR.
Also be nice if they combined there power policies. Tories nuclear and lib dems renewable and national grid upgrades.


Energize said:
It would be nice if governments weren't allowed to interfere with the electoral system and we had a seperate independant body to reform the electoral system as parties don't care about what's best for the country, only what's best for themselves.
Click to expand...
+1
Lib-dems only want it as they so few seats as their votes are spread out. Nothing to do with interest of the country. Even though most PR system would mean Lib-Dems would still do badly.
 
Rich_L said:
Nope not at all, I and I suspect many others in the media and public would completely support the Lib Dems in making a refusal to agree to electoral reform an absolute deal-breaker, and likewise would be very disappointed if they dropped that for pithy ministerial/policy compromises.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you don't think this just because it supports your view? The truth of the matter is that it could go either way and that the Lib Dems probably have the most to lose. Another General Election soon will more than likely end up with a Conservative victory as they are pretty much the only party they can actually afford to run a campaign and the voters will want a government rather than another hung parliament.


Rich_L said:
Wouldn't it be nice to actually be having the discussion on the best type of voting system knowing that we could actually have a say at some point, rather than being told by the Tories that we (the public) don't deserve and/or can't be trusted to have an input in how we (the public) vote for our representatives :)
Click to expand...

Considering that some of the pro PR people in this thread actually thought that AV was a PR system I am not actually sure that a quick decision on what system and a referendum would be the smartest of things to do. Also I am not 100% sure that there is real widespread desire for significant voting reform. When even an obviously skewed poll question such as "Would you like a more proportional voting system" can manage only just over half saying yes I think it is a struggle to suggest that it really is strongly desired.
 
AcidHell2 said:
trouble is that doesn't happen as the majority just vote on what they have been told or just make it up. How many people actually would sit down and research. Same as a referendum on EU. People would vote, without a clue of what they are voting for.
Click to expand...
The thing is I can understand about the EU as complex international trade and relations and suchlike can't really be boiled down into something as simple as 'yeah or no' to Europe boo, but something like the voting system I think actually is worthy of putting to a referendum. If you can't trust people to vote for how they want to vote then it pretty much undermines the whole concept of voting in the first place :p

RDM said:
Are you sure you don't think this just because it supports your view? The truth of the matter is that it could go either way and that the Lib Dems probably have the most to lose. Another General Election soon will more than likely end up with a Conservative victory as they are pretty much the only party they can actually afford to run a campaign and the voters will want a government rather than another hung parliament.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly! :) It's only from reading around and polls indicating a fair bit of support for a change and/or referendum even (pre-election) from Tory supporters in polls.

I don't even know if another election would produce a different result - the Tories could probably afford it but then would the party stay silent and right behind Cameron again when he failed to deliver a majority? I don't know :) Would the UKIP voters who looked in a number of case to have prevented a Tory win be courted, alienating other voters? I don't know - I think another election is not a certain shoe-in and could be dangerous for Cameron - imagine if he failed a second time around to deliver an outright majority :eek:

Interesting stuff anyway :)
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
It would be nice if governments weren't allowed to interfere with the electoral system and we had a seperate independant body to reform the electoral system as parties don't care about what's best for the country, only what's best for themselves.
Click to expand...

I like this a lot - but reality sets in with the knowledge that politicians would never give away that much control over the potential outcome of the next election (which is what it would effectively do).
 
Rich_L said:
The thing is I can understand about the EU as complex international trade and relations and suchlike can't really be boiled down into something as simple as 'yeah or no' to Europe boo, but something like the voting system I think actually is worthy of putting to a referendum. If you can't trust people to vote for how they want to vote then it pretty much undermines the whole concept of voting in the first place :p
Click to expand...

Enter the dictatorship.

How many people understood even the first page of each main party's manifesto? A single individual can make a sound judgement, but put them in a crowd and see how quickly the sheep mentality sets in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom