Share of vote, very strange difference between parties

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

Soldato
Joined
4 Aug 2007
Posts
22,432
Location
Wilds of suffolk
Was just on TV

If 1981 election result was same now tories would have a much smaller majority than they had then. If the %s were reversed, ie labour won by 11% they would have a similar majority to Thatcher had back in 81.

Put it this way, tories would now have a majority of about 20, labour would have a majority of about 100. Same vote just parties reversed.

The explanation was that labour have few very high vote areas, the tories have quite a few more, so the tories vote is in effect less efficient, the pile up votes in safe seats and lose closer seats.

Quite interesting, I hadn't realised that it was that out of balance.
 
Indeed... and as we leave behind voting for the person, and we embrace voting for the party it would seem less and less relevant to have first past the post.

I do however think FPTP is clearly the best method for selecting MPs and I'd rather we got rid of parties, rather than getting rid of FPTP.. but what we have now isn't very functional.
 
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

- Sir Winston Churchill
 
I would prefer proportional system, but that's probably because I support a minority party.
FPTP means a more stable government but means that some votes are wasted.
 
Last edited:
shoes said:
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

- Sir Winston Churchill
Click to expand...

Personally I believe in PR based on IQ when voting, but if thats too difficult maybe a basic test similar to a driving test in order to be able to vote ie you need to prove a certain level of understanding.

Some many people are so utterly clueless and yet we allow them to vote to dictate who gets to run the country.
 
shoes said:
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

- Sir Winston Churchill
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you just going to quote someone who absolutely failed as a politician when it came down to actual governance?
 
Ahleckz said:
The voting system isn't the problem, it's the constituencies.
Click to expand...

I don't think they're right... but that's not the issue.

The issue is that we all (or nearly all) now vote for a party, however our votes are abitrtrarily grouped together and negated by region, to the point where you could quite literally have 49.9% of the population voting for one party and 50.1% of the population voting for another and the other would have every single MP seat in the House of Commons.

I have absolutely no problem with that if people are casting their vote for a person, because in each are the best person is selected.

I do have a problem when people are casting a vote for a party.

The solution is to get back to voting for people, or to abandon FPTP. One or the other, what we have now isn't right.

My personal preference is we break things right down to smaller areas than where we elect a councillor. From there MPs are elevated from the councillor population, and the House of Commons can function.

What I want to get away from is career politicians, and unelected party officials and spin doctors telling elected puppet MPs what to do.

Either that or proper PR, not the ideal solution at all in my opinion, but better than what we have now.
 
PermaBanned said:
Do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you just going to quote someone who absolutely failed as a politician when it came down to actual governance?
Click to expand...

How about adding to the conversation with some examples of this failure as a politician?
 
This is my choice
1) Vote for a minority candidate which represent my feelings but has no chance of winning the seat.
2) Vote for a party which I disagree with.
3) Not vote at all.
You can see how the current system is flawed as I have effectively no voice, I equally hate all the main three parties.
 
RomanNose said:
This is my choice
1) Vote for a minority candidate which represent my feelings but has no chance of winning the seat.
2) Vote for a party which I disagree with.
3) Not vote at all.
You can see how the current system is flawed as I have effectively no voice, I equally hate all the main three parties.
Click to expand...

Or option 4) Show your disgust at the system by spoiling your ballot paper, by writing "You're all a bunch of lying ****s anyway"
 
RomanNose said:
This is my choice
1) Vote for a minority candidate which represent my feelings but has no chance of winning the seat.
2) Vote for a party which I disagree with.
3) Not vote at all.
You can see how the current system is flawed as I have effectively no voice, I equally hate all the main three parties.
Click to expand...

I suspect if everyone who thought this went out and voted then 1) would be less of an issue.
 
Voting doesn't make a difference any longer. Red/Blue/Yellow, they all answer to Brussels.

Even if they didn't, they are all pretty much the same party anyway. Being mainly made of career politicians these days.
 
First past the post is an unrepresentative piece of rubbish, and if you add that to the horrifically imbalanced constituencies, you have a shocking electoral system on your hands. Redrawing the constituency boundaries will go some way toward sorting this mess out, but we need to chuck out our 18th century electoral system before we can hope to get our democracy on a sound footing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom