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:
is it needed? is it a good thing?
The current system is PR at a local level.
Click to expand...
Yes I would say it is needed. Any system where a party can get an overall majority with a 1/3rd of the popular vote is clearly broken - the FPTP system is designed for a 2-party system where it works well, in a 3-party (or more) it is utterly inadequate. It really not that complicated, after all the 'dumb, easily led' public have been managing quite capably to vote using a PR system with the EU elections for the last decade.

why would you want to implement a system that you conceded could be bad for the country, just because of some precieved fairness.
Click to expand...
Equally, why wouldn't you want to implement a fairer, more representative system, shown to work in a number of countries, the EU elections, the assembly elections in Scotland/Wales/NI, all of which seem to manage quite capably without any noticeable catastrophes.

The NRW result means Mrs Merkel's coalition no longer has a majority in the upper house of parliament. This will make it more difficult for her government to get legislation passed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8672946.stm
Click to expand...
What, you mean a government enacted unpopular policies and then found it had a harder time continuing to do so? How terrible! It's almost like the German government is accountable to it's voters :p
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
If the media is right the libs. They want a coalition based on a PR reform. Not one that will be decided after an investigation.
And what happens if the reports come back saying PR is not the way forward and something like AV is. Do we ignore that and go PR anyway.

It is retarded to force this issue for a coalition.
it should be based on economy with an agreement to look at electoral reform. Maybe even setting up a commite as a condition.

It's not that I'm against PR, I'm against any rushed change to such an important system.
I'm also against people saying they want PR when they clearly have no idea what it is, what the difference in the models are and the lack of how it will benefit the UK.
Click to expand...

Look, I'll agree the whole situation has descended into farce. I am going to have to go catch my train home, I'll revisit your post when I get in.
 
Merlin5 said:
So would that have worked out better for conservative? Sorry for sounding so ignorant. :o
Click to expand...

No. They got ~47% of the seats with 36% of the vote, both they and Labour benefited a lot from FPTP*, the Libs were heavily penalised. The two parties who did worst out of it were UKIP and the BNP.

* - people talking about the system being biased against the Tories, and it was at this election, but only if your talking about it relative to Labour. Compared to everyone else (except the DUP anomaly) they benefit hugely from it.
 
AcidHell2 said:
They also have a proper so constitution and other differences. Would this cause a problem I have no idea.

FPTP is democracy it is also PR, just at a local level not national.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't class FPTP as PR at a local level, consider this:

Person A - 40% of the vote
Person B - 45% of the vote
Person C - 15% of the vote

Clearly, Person B "won", but 55% of the people in that constituency are pretty much unrepresented!
 
Last edited:
Some of that braniac quote isnt me btw! ^

avec said:
The Lib Dems want PR to benefit themselves more than the voters.
Click to expand...

Considering that Lib Dem first tried to do a coallition with otories, jsut, NO.

also PR for the benefit of lib dems? well im sorry if a directly proportional vote benefits a party, it just so happens nearly 1 in 4 voters voted for them and didn't get represented fairly.

PR may lead to a tory vote increase, yes ok, and if they get 50% and a majority then OK. But why oppose it? scared you'll lose 10% of those unfair seats?
 
Rich_L said:
What, you mean a government enacted unpopular policies and then found it had a harder time continuing to do so? How terrible! It's almost like the German government is accountable to it's voters :p
Click to expand...
Way to miss the point. PR meant she lost control after losing just a little. I.e. a weak government.
 
Just think, if we get PR we can look forward to this same period of indecisiveness and back room deals with the party that came third holding all the power at every election. HUZZAH!
 
Rich_L said:
Yes I would say it is needed. Any system where a party can get an overall majority with a 1/3rd of the popular vote is clearly broken - the FPTP system is designed for a 2-party system where it works well, in a 3-party (or more) it is utterly inadequate. It really not that complicated, after all the 'dumb, easily led' public have been managing quite capably to vote using a PR system with the EU elections for the last decade.

Equally, why wouldn't you want to implement a fairer, more representative system, shown to work in a number of countries, the EU elections, the assembly elections in Scotland/Wales/NI, all of which seem to manage quite capably without any noticeable catastrophes.
Click to expand...

The scottish system does work reasonably well, but incorporates one of the caveats I require directly, and another (following the last set of elections) by convention, namely that the biggest party provides the first minister.

It is also worth looking at the scottish parliament for the spoiled votes comparison, especially with how complex ballot papers can lead to disenfranchisement of the poorer areas...
 
avec said:
The Lib Dems want PR to benefit themselves more than the voters.

Labour want AV to benefit themselves more than the voters.

The Conservatives want FPTP because they believe there should be a strong government either way.
Click to expand...

Tosh!

The Libs want PR because it is a fairer and more democratic system that just happens to benefit them.

The Conservatives probably honestly believe that tosh about strong government and it just happens to be a system that hugely benefits them.

Labour think AV would benefit them, and they might be able to buy Lib Dem support for their continued power with it.
 
Last edited:
Rich_L said:
Equally, why wouldn't you want to implement a fairer, more representative system, shown to work in a number of countries, the EU elections, the assembly elections in Scotland/Wales/NI, all of which seem to manage quite capably without any noticeable catastrophes.
Click to expand...

It is fair as you are voting locally not nationally. It is just a different way of doing things.

because we are not other countries, we have different laws and different set up of governments.

As I said I am not against PR. But we need to do what's best for the UK, that requires a committee to look at all models and make recommendations. That might go against PR. Or it might recommend a particular PR.

What we don't want is it forced on us as some deal breaker which is forced through regardless on what is best for the country.
 
FPTP is not bias towards anyone, what is bias are boundaries towards Labour.
The issue with LD is that they have a bit of support everywhere, but no-where do they have enough support to beat out the other parties.

FPTP works perfectly well as it represents the wishes of the people in each constituency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom