Arguments used in support of FPTP
doesn't alienate people who can't count.
Had to laugh...
The 'Arguments used in support of FPTP' were all extremely poor, no?
Arguments used in support of FPTP
doesn't alienate people who can't count.
I'm looking forward to next month's referendum on whether to abolish all parties except the Tories and Labour.

Labour's Lord Reid, who backed the No campaign, said the decisive result "should put electoral reform off the agenda".
Bye bye PR
If the referendum had been PR vs FPTP, do you think the outcome would have been any different?
All it takes is a little FUD and people will vote no to anything, even if it's in their own best interest.
It's already happened.![]()
The silly thing is lib dems voters must have there heads in the sands. Lib dem have got an amazing amount of power. Far more than the number of votes they received. Conservatives have given them huge concessions just to get a working government. This is the best situation they have ever been in and a few policies is better than zero. They, dare I say it are stupid.

You're wrong. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/22/formulas-for-fair-votingIt also means NO tactical voting, as voters can vote for their true preferences, in order.
My point exactly. Clearly people aren't interested in the other parties ever having any power.
Come off it, 22% of the vote and 9% of the seats? One measly referendum? What other concessions did they make?
AcidHell, as much as we all love your recitals of the 'official line', it would be nice if you thought clearly for 2 seconds. For example, the AV IS more representative. It means parties need approval from EVERY kind of voter, not just the traditional ones. It also means NO tactical voting, as voters can vote for their true preferences, in order.
Perhaps you've been a Tory voter since you turned 18, but some of us like the look of more than one party. Sadly, for those voters who understand the importance of their vote, it's back to tactical voting as usual![]()
Had to laugh...
The 'Arguments used in support of FPTP' were all extremely poor, no?

If the referendum had been PR vs FPTP, do you think the outcome would have been any different?

I didn't say anything about seats. Look what and who they have in the cabinet, it's not just the referendum, they have big influence in other policies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8695213.stm
Av does not stop tactical voting, read that webpage and have a think about it. Fptp allows you to vote for your preference but people don't, av can be handled the same. Av does not make government more proportional as it is still based on boundaries. Av does not mean you need approval from every kind of voter, and it doesnt make them work harder. That tactical vote people used in fptp will be people's second choice in av.
It has nothing to do with not wanting other parties to have any say, it's about not wanting another rubbish system. It wasn't a vote for ftpt, it was a vote against av. Now if we had a vote on another system one of the PR ones, then I think you would find the voting massively different and it would be a photo finish, wether it would be enough is a different matter.