UK Politics Discussion

[Sy_Accursed]

This newly proposed Alternative Voting system cons wanna referendum sounds pretty decent.

Idea is when you vote you rank each candidate (so 1st chocie, 2nd choice etc)

When votes for the seat are tallied (as with parliament atm) winner MUST have a majority. If no-one has over 50% the last place party is removed and the 2nd choice vote is taken for those voters and so on until 1 party has 50%+

So if ur vote was

BNP

Cons

Lab

Libs

And BNP lost, but no-one had 50% ur vote wuld then count for cons.

If still no clear winner and cons were now losing, ur vote wuld count for labour.

 

Seems like a potentially much better voting system, as it means each seat MUST have someone in it who 50%+ or constituents want or are at least ok with.

Which means for example a 30% overall vote for lib dems wuld actually get lib dems far more seats. Much better than atm where in last 4 elections my constituency had around 40% con, 30% lib, 20% lab and 10% other vote split; so we are under conservatives even thou 60% dont want it.

[tortilliachp]

This newly proposed Alternative Voting system cons wanna referendum sounds pretty decent.

Idea is when you vote you rank each candidate (so 1st chocie, 2nd choice etc)

When votes for the seat are tallied (as with parliament atm) winner MUST have a majority. If no-one has over 50% the last place party is removed and the 2nd choice vote is taken for those voters and so on until 1 party has 50%+

So if ur vote was

BNP

Cons

Lab

Libs

And BNP lost, but no-one had 50% ur vote wuld then count for cons.

If still no clear winner and cons were now losing, ur vote wuld count for labour.

 

Seems like a potentially much better voting system, as it means each seat MUST have someone in it who 50%+ or constituents want or are at least ok with.

Which means for example a 30% overall vote for lib dems wuld actually get lib dems far more seats. Much better than atm where in last 4 elections my constituency had around 40% con, 30% lib, 20% lab and 10% other vote split; so we are under conservatives even thou 60% dont want it.

 

why not have PR like everyone else in the whole world has had for years and years? that way representation is based on everyone's top candidate choices, rather than having parlament as a continuation of mere local politics. Divide the electorate into 30 regions (based on population) where the parties gain upto 20 candidates based on voter percentages for each party (personal votes within party lists). the remaining 50 candidates are distributed according to votes per candidates to all the parties (in norway: fairness-delegates) so voter representation overall is based on votes, region and as eqal representation per vote as is possible within the 650 candidates. It's not a difficult concept, and it's obviously the fairest alternative...

 

I don't see why there's this feeling of the need for a government now now now now now!! either , economically speaking. waiting for a coalition to form is something everyone expects after a multi-party election here.

[Sy_Accursed]

Erm The idea of regions dictating seats does work here.

 

We have 650 seats, each seat gets a winner and thus an mp in parliament. The reason we dont have PR is because of the huge flaw of coalition governing, it is reknowned for rarely getting anything done and having masses of elections again and again. The British System of first pas the psot is flawed atm, but atleast it avoids coalitions.

 

I personally like this proposed new system, it makes elections results much more closely related to what people actually want, as you HAVE to get a majority in each area to get it but equally maintains a way that we dont face coalition governing.

[tortilliachp]

Erm The idea of regions dictating seats does work here.

 

We have 650 seats, each seat gets a winner and thus an mp in parliament. The reason we dont have PR is because of the huge flaw of coalition governing, it is reknowned for rarely getting anything done and having masses of elections again and again. The British System of first pas the psot is flawed atm, but atleast it avoids coalitions.

 

I personally like this proposed new system, it makes elections results much more closely related to what people actually want, as you HAVE to get a majority in each area to get it but equally maintains a way that we dont face coalition governing.

 

erm, so you're saying you're against PR beacuse it represents coalition, and coalition is weakness? Look at Germany, look to Scandinavia (who just by the way are the nations who were most successful in riding through the economic crisis), switzerland and india.

 

I think you need to start looking at the facts, not the spin Labour and the Conservatives wish to put against PR beacuse it means they have less power.

 

When there is no simple single-party majority, how can you have a majority government? what about consensus? what about moderation? what about cooperation (look at america for another bipartite state), what about what the people want?

 

major problems of first past the post: gerrymandering, wasted votes:

 

Wasted votes are votes cast for losing candidates or votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory. For example, in the UK General Election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes - a total of 70% wasted votes. This is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP, that a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome. Alternative electoral systems attempt to ensure that almost all votes are effective in influencing the result and the number of wasted votes is consequently minimised.

70% of votes not counting? Democracy? yeah right.

 

How many % of countiting votes for your party/candidate do you get? any more than 30%? My system is 70, count them SEVENTY percentage points better than yours.

[Sy_Accursed]

I'm not against PR because of any spin, I'm against PR as historical and quite well proven in many cases it leads to weak governing and little being achieved. Yes in some countries it works, but they have many central parties. UK Have 3 main partys, 2 of which are polar oppositions meaning coalition is unlikely to work here.

 

Like I said I like the new suggestion seems to give a better voice than first past the post, but avoids the weaknesses of PR

[dusqi]

I'm not against PR because of any spin, I'm against PR as historical and quite well proven in many cases it leads to weak governing and little being achieved. Yes in some countries it works, but they have many central parties. UK Have 3 main partys, 2 of which are polar oppositions meaning coalition is unlikely to work here.

 

Like I said I like the new suggestion seems to give a better voice than first past the post, but avoids the weaknesses of PR

 

From the news, my understanding is that AV would change very little in terms of the number of seats in the House of Commons. Apparently the Libs might get another 30 seats, giving them 13% of the seats with 23% of the vote. And, really, if it was going to change anything, the Conservatives wouldn't offer it.

 

 

Anyway, voting reform aside, it sounds from the media as if Lib-Lab talks have broken down (as someone here mentioned, Labs don't want PR either) and Lib-Con is the only game left. Hopefully the Libs will be able to take the edge off of the Conservatives' most extreme policies (tax breaks for millionaires...)

[Sy_Accursed]

I'm not against PR because of any spin, I'm against PR as historical and quite well proven in many cases it leads to weak governing and little being achieved. Yes in some countries it works, but they have many central parties. UK Have 3 main partys, 2 of which are polar oppositions meaning coalition is unlikely to work here.

 

Like I said I like the new suggestion seems to give a better voice than first past the post, but avoids the weaknesses of PR

 

From the news, my understanding is that AV would change very little in terms of the number of seats in the House of Commons. Apparently the Libs might get another 30 seats, giving them 13% of the seats with 23% of the vote. And, really, if it was going to change anything, the Conservatives wouldn't offer it.

 

 

Anyway, voting reform aside, it sounds from the media as if Lib-Lab talks have broken down (as someone here mentioned, Labs don't want PR either) and Lib-Con is the only game left. Hopefully the Libs will be able to take the edge off of the Conservatives' most extreme policies (tax breaks for millionaires...)

 

AV could make a huge difference. Out of 650 seats something like 5 actually have a majority winner, so thats 645 seats without a majority winner . Sure in some cases it'd still keep same result, but in alot of seats where its fairly close (eg 40% con, 30% lib dem) it could quite easily change who'd get the seat.

[tortilliachp]

I'm not against PR because of any spin, I'm against PR as historical and quite well proven in many cases it leads to weak governing and little being achieved. Yes in some countries it works, but they have many central parties. UK Have 3 main partys, 2 of which are polar oppositions meaning coalition is unlikely to work here.

 

Like I said I like the new suggestion seems to give a better voice than first past the post, but avoids the weaknesses of PR

 

weaknesses such as democracy, and the representation of people's votes within government. few would argue that autocracy leads to stronger government. the whole idea is that people vote to have an effect, be part of the desicion for who governs your country.

 

Of course the political system would have to adapt to PR, the conservatives and labour aren't "parties" in the sense that they have closely related views on a host of issues, like the parties of a multiparty democracy. Yes, party strucutres would change, so you'd know what you vote for when you vote for a representative of a party: an individual, and all the major key principles all of the party stands for: consensus within a party, strength.

 

That means the change that occurs is change supported by the majority of those who have the right to vote. It means the change is the change people want. If majority don't want change to be made, maybe it shouldn't pass quickly? The tax-payers pay, shouldn't they get the major say? That's not a socialist view, it's not a liberalist view, it's a democratic view.

 

 

If you want to look at history, i give you examples of how past the post system failed the world in critical positions in the US and UK in the first half of the 20th century:

1. America not joining the League of nations in 1920, the whole Paris peace after WWI was based on the false premise of public support due to FPTP voting.

2. UK joining the League of Nations in 1920, there was no general public support, FPTP voting ensured that Britain was to conduct its foreign policy through a system (including collective security) that more than 80% of public opinion was directly AGAINST.

3. Hoare-laval pact in the Abyssinian crisis against the aggression of Mussolini. The deal was secret (due to FPTP system politicians are less accountable), when it emerged in Britain, there was general public outrage.

4. Appeasement of Hitler from 1936-9. Public opinion in Britain wanted action taken against Hitler. FPTP system ensured a legislative majority against.

[Danqazmlp]

I am now disappointed with our Government. Second PM in a row who the country have not voted into power.

 

I really just hate Cameron with a passion. I wouldn't mind so much a different Cons leader, but just not him. He got the position through being young, he managed to increase the cons vote by just nitpicking everything Labour did without having any good policies. Now we have him in power. He does not know at all what he is getting himself into. Ugh just cannot stand the pillock.

[magekillr]

He got the position through being young, he managed to increase the cons vote by just nitpicking everything Labour did without having any good policies. Now we have him in power. He does not know at all what he is getting himself into. Ugh just cannot stand the pillock.

 

Heh, sounds like our Republicans. They might take a majority of the House this 2010 election, and they have done it just by nitpicking and opposing everything the Democrats have done. Some of their candidates are polling at like 25% approve, 40% disapprove, but they'll win because "they're not in office." It's a throw the bums out mentality. They don't let the Democrats accomplish anything, so the voters just suffer from a do-nothing government in a perilous time where we need a lot of change. I suspect that's why Cameron has been so successful.

 

And about PR making your country dysfunctional, I don't think that's the case at all. In fact, plurality voting systems make countries dysfunctional, because they allow politics to supersede any form of honest government. Look at what I said about the GOP: they've opposed anything the Democrats have done just because they're the opposition party. They have yet to vote for anything our party has put forth, at least nothing major. Health care reform? That passed without one single Republican, even though the plan itself was a Republican plan (it was nearly identical to something they proposed 15 years ago). Most Americans don't know how the GOP has been able to oppose everything they do, they just know the Democrats are in power and nothing's getting done. Thus, it shields people from accountability when they're not in power, and allows them to play politics.

 

Compare this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system#Where_plurality_voting_is_used

 

To this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation

 

and then tell me, which one is more dysfunctional than the other?

[Sy_Accursed]

Its not a case of system x is worse than system y.

Its a case of neither is perfect and its working is entirely subjective to the leading parties in the country.

[tortilliachp]

Its not a case of system x is worse than system y.

Its a case of neither is perfect and its working is entirely subjective to the leading parties in the country.

 

actually, it is a case of one system being fairer than the other, and also more representative of teh people's wishes, therefore by definition more democratic.

 

neither system is perfect, but there are some CLEAR markings of why FPTP is dysfunctional (see the historical examples presented above). A world war (in the case of appeasement) no less. That's quite a clear indicator.

[Sy_Accursed]

Its not a case of system x is worse than system y.

Its a case of neither is perfect and its working is entirely subjective to the leading parties in the country.

 

actually, it is a case of one system being fairer than the other, and also more representative of teh people's wishes, therefore by definition more democratic.

 

neither system is perfect, but there are some CLEAR markings of why FPTP is dysfunctional (see the historical examples presented above). A world war (in the case of appeasement) no less. That's quite a clear indicator.

 

Erm what about the fact PR systems are what let Hitler get into power in the first place?

There's clear examples of both being utterly dysfunctional, and I never said anything about the democracy of them.

 

I merely said PR wuldnt work here IMO as itd be dysfunctional given the British parties and that I liked the system Torys were proposing to try n get lib dems into coalition as it was more democractic and representative of the people; but avoided the pitfalls of PR

[PhaperPlane]

My response to David Cameron being the new Prime Minister.

_██_

(ಠ_ృ)

oh and; http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/

 

I had a nasty feeling that Cameron was going to somehow become PM but now we have to wait another 4 years, or unless the coalition breaks down.

[tortilliachp]

Its not a case of system x is worse than system y.

Its a case of neither is perfect and its working is entirely subjective to the leading parties in the country.

 

actually, it is a case of one system being fairer than the other, and also more representative of teh people's wishes, therefore by definition more democratic.

 

neither system is perfect, but there are some CLEAR markings of why FPTP is dysfunctional (see the historical examples presented above). A world war (in the case of appeasement) no less. That's quite a clear indicator.

 

Erm what about the fact PR systems are what let Hitler get into power in the first place?

There's clear examples of both being utterly dysfunctional, and I never said anything about the democracy of them.

 

I merely said PR wuldnt work here IMO as itd be dysfunctional given the British parties and that I liked the system Torys were proposing to try n get lib dems into coalition as it was more democractic and representative of the people; but avoided the pitfalls of PR

 

actually, hitler rose to power only as the parties who were to form a coalition bartered behind closed doors. that is the case with all systems of democracy, you don't vote for the whole government, and who becomes finance minister or minister of transport in any system, you vote for people and the party decides the positions.

 

Hitler never gained democratic power through election, he gained power through political bartering. that happens irrespective of system.

[Will H]

PR simply increases the chance of giving disproportionate power to parties like the Lib Dems, who, in a hung parliament, are now in a significant position of power despite having a smaller proportion of the votes and far fewer seats compared to Labour. Is that fair and justified? Of course not. In the end, fairness is not guaranteed or definable in any system, but at least First Past the Post reduces the chances of this kind of thing happening. Just be glad that we got the Lib Dems as the kingmakers, instead of a more extremist party.

[Sy_Accursed]

PR simply increases the chance of giving disproportionate power to parties like the Lib Dems, who, in a hung parliament, are now in a significant position of power despite having a smaller proportion of the votes and far fewer seats compared to Labour. Is that fair and justified? Of course not. In the end, fairness is not guaranteed or definable in any system, but at least First Past the Post reduces the chances of this kind of thing happening. Just be glad that we got the Lib Dems as the kingmakers, instead of a more extremist party.

 

Its hardly disproportionate lib dems got 30% of the overall vote, which is pretty much equal to what labour got and not that far short of conservatives who only got like 40%

 

The only reason they lack seats is the post system means they marginally lost in many seats and thuis dont get seats, despite having a huge chunk of overall vote.

[tortilliachp]

PR simply increases the chance of giving disproportionate power to parties like the Lib Dems, who, in a hung parliament, are now in a significant position of power despite having a smaller proportion of the votes and far fewer seats compared to Labour. Is that fair and justified? Of course not. In the end, fairness is not guaranteed or definable in any system, but at least First Past the Post reduces the chances of this kind of thing happening. Just be glad that we got the Lib Dems as the kingmakers, instead of a more extremist party.

 

compromise is how things work. if a party is willing to scacrifice the position their electorate has given them for power, then their electorate deserves to know that before the election. when a majority of candidates vote for a bill, noone forces any of them to vote.

 

It's not like the conservatives needed to make a government. they make a deal with the lib-dems of their own choice. what if you don't have majority government? does the world fall appart? No! there's then just no constellation where the majority of the people support one political direction.

 

If a party sacrifices their PR for position instead of opposition, maybe it's time to vote for a different party, not to blame it on the electorial system...

[Sam]

I'm glad a result has been finally reached. Whilst being mostly conservative in my political views, I do hope the Lib Dems do stem the more extreme policies of the Tories.

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

Bloody, hell Hitlers in power.

[Kiriyama]

Bloody, hell Hitlers in power.

 

The BNP got in power? How?

[Sam]

Bloody, hell Hitlers in power.

 

The BNP got in power? How?

 

*Unmasks David Cameron, Nick Griffin is under the mask* "I could of stopped immigration if it wasn't for you meddling socialists!"

[Racheya]

Rofl XD

 

Yep, the result is out... all we have to do now is wait for their coalition to break down :cool: The Tories and... well... any other Party don't go well together.

[Jaziek]

Nick Clegg is a traitorous bastard. That is all.

[assassin_696]

* There will be a "significant acceleration" of efforts to reduce the budget deficit - including £6bn of spending reductions this year. An emergency Budget will take place within 50 days

* Plans for five-year, fixed-term parliaments, meaning the next election would not take place until May 2015

* The Lib Dems have agreed to drop plans for a "mansion tax" on properties costing more than £2m, while the Conservatives have ditched their pledge to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1m

* The new administration will scrap part of Labour's planned rise in National Insurance and will work towards raising income tax thresholds for lower earners

* A pledge to have a referendum on any further transfer of powers to the EU and a commitment from the Lib Dems not to adopt the euro for the lifetime of the next Parliament

* The Lib Dems have agreed to Tory proposals for a cap on non-EU migration

* The Conservatives will recognise marriage in the tax system, but Lib Dems will abstain in Commons vote

* The Lib Dems will drop opposition to a replacement for Britain's Trident nuclear missiles but the programme will be scrutinised for value for money

* There will be a referendum on moving to the Alternative Vote system and enhanced "pupil premium" for deprived children as Lib Dems demanded

 

Awesome