Well there's an argument that if the was PR then the Tories couldn't scare people with and Labour/SNP coalition and more people wouldn't have been afraid to vote UKIP, we can never truly know for sure but without FPTP a Labour/SNP would have been unable to be bigger than the Tories
Poll: The official I voted/election results thread
- Thread starter Dark Light
- Start date
Well there's an argument that if the was PR then the Tories couldn't scare people with and Labour/SNP coalition and more people wouldn't have been afraid to vote UKIP, we can never truly know for sure but without FPTP a Labour/SNP would have been unable to be bigger than the Tories
I've always voted tactically, as there is no party that represents my views - neither are new party start-ups likely to occur in a system which penalises new entities (which don't peddle 'populist' ideas).
I'd expect UKIP, Liberal Democrats & Greens to make huge gains under proportional representation, both in terms of seats & vote share (once you alleviate the need for tactical voting).
I'd expect UKIP, Liberal Democrats & Greens to make huge gains under proportional representation, both in terms of seats & vote share (once you alleviate the need for tactical voting).
... aruably, but definitley more representative of how the UK voted.
I see the other side too - when I have a complaint I much prefer knowing who my Westminster MP is and contacting them, rather than picking a name at random of the list of my MEPs. That's why I support AV+, a hybrid system combining FPTP and PR as the most appropriate solution for the UK /thumbsup.
Really they need to rework the whole local/national issue, if anything an increase in power to local councils (council elections = local, general elections = national) - with the MP assigned to the area in question having to work with the local council election winners.
That way you can keep proportional representation for both - but apply it also to councillors locally & to MPs nationally. This would be the most representative.
That way you can keep proportional representation for both - but apply it also to councillors locally & to MPs nationally. This would be the most representative.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Why AV+ over STV? Still results in a majority of large minority of a constituency being unrepresented, and the whole concept of party lists is controversial at best.
Were people aware of the at least 60 dead as a direct result of the previous welfare cuts?
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/
So sad, and surely more to come this parliament.
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/
So sad, and surely more to come this parliament.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...hinging-why-the-Left-are-such-bad-losers.html
Whilst my opinion of Politicians is lower than a snakes belly, the above article sums it up, particularly the bit at the end about living lives through Facebook and Twitter.
Whilst my opinion of Politicians is lower than a snakes belly, the above article sums it up, particularly the bit at the end about living lives through Facebook and Twitter.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
I have been through various Govts that promise more power to local level and do the exact opposite. having fought an election and getting a taste of power the last thing they do is then give that power away.
I used to thing that PR would be good but I now think it would result in weak Govt. Under PR, in the last election, you could have got a four party coalition of labour, Greens, LibDems and the SNP, from the article I saw.
Politicians squabbling within one party is bad enough but imagine that over three or four parties of different ideologies. The fixed five year Govt. would have to go as any coalition party could leave and mean a Govt not able to govern for years until the fixed term was up. PR only increases instability.
Bang on that!
Well at least under AV+ an MP has to get >50% of the votes in his constituency one way or another.
Advantages of AV+ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_vote_Plus):
- Would require relatively minor modifications to existing system, and maintain single-member constituencies.
- Would lead to a more proportional result than First Past the Post (FPTP) or AV, but would still give a built-in advantage to the largest party and allow one-party rule during landslide years.
- Would lessen the problems of 'split voting' and the necessity of tactical voting.
- Coalition governments, which include the opinions of multiple movements of the people, are more likely.
- Decreases the chances of 'safe seats' and MPs holding seats for life.
- MPs will have to secure 50% of votes to win a constituency seat - making them more accountable and working harder to win over a broader appeal.
- Limits the chances for extremists to gain power scraping in with minority support. AV+ shuts down the ability for candidates to slip in with just a minority of the votes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Many of those "advantages" are shared by STV, but i would argue that:
-Requiring few modifications to the existing system is actually a disadvantage as it is already quite gerrymandered, new boundaries really need to be drawn.
-Multi-member constituencies are actually an advantage of STV as it gives people a choice of local representatives to go to.
-STV is also a preferential system which just so happens to result in a range of elected representatives that relatively closely reflect the national distribution of votes per party.
I don't take a strong side on this, but the factor everyone's forgetting when comparing the response of the "left" is the actual impact.
As written in this article, no Tory voters got angry when Labour last won with < 40% of the vote. All they lost was a few % of their top-rate earnings.
When the Conservatives got in the other week the likelihood is that the benefits being directed to the poor, ill, and disabled will decrease by several billions of pounds. The outcome of this will be suicide for some people.
So IMO people are absolutely correct to be angry, even with Tory voters, because they're directly implicated in increased human suffering for the most vulnerable.
very good
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 998
- Location
- London
I am glad that us sandal-wearing, latte-siping, muesli-munching, Guardian-reading fully paid members of the PC Brigade never have bile spat at us for thinking differently to people on the right.
The worst you get is comments on the internet, UKIP members have been beaten up, spat at, death threats and houses/offices/posters smashed and vandalised, it's on an entirely different level.
I agree, but that would be based on the fact people would vote the same way. What I suspect would happen is there would be an increase in votes for the smaller parties (UKIP, Green etc), as people realised they stood a reasonable chance of doing well.
I definitely think some of the smaller parties suffered this time around due to an increased awareness that a vote for them in a good number of cases was just as effective as voting for the people you didn't want to see in power. A good number voted tactically at work.
And this is where stv falls down. If you vote for the winner, they automatically think you would vote for another candidate of the same party, which I don't think is true for many people. However there isn't a sensible work around for stv either as whos votes would they choose to go to 2nd choice.
Oh Jesus i wish people would give it a rest with this whole mantra that tory voters should be implicated in the murder of our less fortunate members of society
What if most Tory supporters are of the mindset that a strong economy is the most important foundation for the whole country and they thought the Conservatives were the best option in this regard?
If we have a strong and rich economy, then the rest will fall into place, including giving people the help they need, when they need it.
But oh no, you think everyone who voted tory is essentially a murderer and an advocate of human suffering.
I would be very careful using a campaigning website as a source of unbiased information. Pretty much any of the mental health charities will tell you that no one single factor is involved when it comes to suicide in the majority of cases so pinning the blame on WCA etc. is inaccurate at best and disingenuous at worst.