Be surprised if it made a difference when the conservatives change the borders for constituencies.
They'll build a system that means only they can win.
Poll: The official I voted/election results thread
- Thread starter Dark Light
- Start date
Be surprised if it made a difference when the conservatives change the borders for constituencies.
They'll build a system that means only they can win.
That's not under governments remit however, borders are done with no respect to party alliance, this isnt the states.
How do we know that under PR more people would have not voted for the conservatives and that the result may have been very similar to what we have now anyway?
Oh that is right, we don't.
Also why is it necessarily fairer? I would say it could be considered more unfair that certain areas might not get the MP that the most people in that area voted for.
Oh that is right, we don't.
Also why is it necessarily fairer? I would say it could be considered more unfair that certain areas might not get the MP that the most people in that area voted for.
That's what preference is for, even if you don't get your first choice, you'd be happy with your 2nd...its not that hard.
It stops all the moaning.
I support PR despite it giving UKIP significantly more power, it's not a democratic to only support changes which are ultimately self-serving.
The main reason would be to increase voter turnout in safe seats (Conservative voters up north, Labour voters down south, UKIP/Green voters nationally etc). It also hugely increases the chances of new political parties entering the arena (hopefully some with new ideas).
It's fairer for the reason that every single vote counts, in our current system if you happen to live an area with a strong historic political affiliation you may as well not bother voting. This is not right in my view.
There is also the fact that 24.3% of the electorate currently command 1.54% of the total seats (UKIP, Lib-dem, Green) - or even worse 16.4% of the electorate (Green, UKIP) have 0.31% of the total seats. This essentially means that 1/4 of the electorate have no representation in parliament.
Not that I expect Conservative voters to agree with this, that would require abandoning a system they directly benefit from - but at least be honest about it, let's not pretend it has anything to do with fairness or representation.
The main reason would be to increase voter turnout in safe seats (Conservative voters up north, Labour voters down south, UKIP/Green voters nationally etc). It also hugely increases the chances of new political parties entering the arena (hopefully some with new ideas).
It's fairer for the reason that every single vote counts, in our current system if you happen to live an area with a strong historic political affiliation you may as well not bother voting. This is not right in my view.
There is also the fact that 24.3% of the electorate currently command 1.54% of the total seats (UKIP, Lib-dem, Green) - or even worse 16.4% of the electorate (Green, UKIP) have 0.31% of the total seats. This essentially means that 1/4 of the electorate have no representation in parliament.
Not that I expect Conservative voters to agree with this, that would require abandoning a system they directly benefit from - but at least be honest about it, let's not pretend it has anything to do with fairness or representation.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Which is exactly why most people favour STV over MMP.
Because it's a better and fairer system of election.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,371
- Location
- Northumberland
This I agree with. Politicians would actually have to work for a living trying to get along with eachother to get laws on the statute books they can all agree on.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Fearing the unknown is ok and might be natural but surely it's how you deal with it that matters. One problem with "it's natural" arguments is they're often linked to "it's common sense" sort of arguments as an excuse for non-evidence based positions and advanced as a reason for treating individuals or groups badly. If you want to use your fear of the unknown as an excuse to discriminate against people then that's probably not desirable.
That was really the point I was making, for the party to reject his resignation shows that they want/need him to continue to lead and that's fine - that is their choice and more importantly his since it was his resignation that was (freely) offered. However it would be disingenuous to pretend that if he was serious about resigning that he couldn't do so irrespective of the wishes of his party.
There's an article from the Independent which gives it under a proportional voting system - obviously different implementations of voting systems would yield different results but it's interesting all the same. From that you could just get on with a two party coalition if it were either Conservative and Labour which would give you 441 seats or Conservative and UKIP for 324 seats (enough based on Sinn Fein not taking up their seats as it stands but maybe just short of a majority depending on how any reforms were implemented) - any other combination would require at least three parties working together.
That's understandable enough. However, the way many are presenting this argument it appears to be that a lot of them are just disgruntled folk who believe that making such changes would result in tories not being voted in and their party doing so. Sore losers?
On could just as easily say that those opposed to PR are just doing so because they are the beneficiaries of an unbalanced electoral system & don't care about democracy.
I haven't seen that tbh. You said yourself the change would've still resulted in a cons win?
Perhaps they're just more open to reason, or you're trying to bait/gloat?
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 998
- Location
- London
Unlike the UKIP voters who became die-hard PR advocates last Friday, we have been crying out for it for decades. It is a fairer system than the current one which has been hurting the Lib Dems and the Greens for a long time. The fact that it would have benefited UKIP this time around is not going to suddenly change our opinions.
And no, the Cons would not have a majority. Any party wanting a majority would need 50% of the votes, which didn't happen this year.
Last edited:
A lot of left-wing people voted Green or would have voted Green under PR.
You don't know that, because the result we got under FPTP = /= the result we might have got under PR.
PR would have resulted in a Con coalition propped up by UKIP, arguably worse than a Con majority lol.
I'd be interested to see how the overall vote numbers would change after introducing a system which prevents "wasted" votes, e.g. a vote for Lib Dem in a Con vs. Lab constituency. You would imagine it would bring the numbers of the smaller parties up even more.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I'd certainly be interested to see what a difference it would make. Anecdotally some people will say they vote tactically but if some form of proportional representation was implemented where tactical voting was less of a consideration (or removed entirely) it would be quite informative to see how many people actually vote tactically and what impact it would have on outcomes. There's lots of questions that arise from it though and just a few of them follow despite the fact that the answers probably can't be known at this point. How would it be implemented and in what format? Would people adapt quickly to a new system whereby they should vote for precisely who they want? Would it mean that people would be less likely to claim that their votes were a "protest" vote so removing support from some parties? Would some parties see a big surge in support as well as seats? Would we end up stuck in perpetual coalitions? And would that be a bad thing?